It is hard to find words for the President’s call to give $250 to Americans collecting Social Security

23 Oct

Sure, it would be nice to do, why not give $250 to our seasoned citizens or for that matter to young families trying to make ends meet. A mere $250 turns into $14,000,000,000, that is fourteen billion, but who is counting and after all what is a mere $14 billion compared to a one trillion-dollar deficit?

“Many seniors are struggling in the face of the economic downturn, having seen their savings fall,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “We urge members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to support our seniors, veterans and others with disabilities who depend on these benefits.”  

Seniors, veterans, the disabled, “working” Americans, minorities and the middle class should be insulted by the low esteem in which our politicians hold them.  By the way, what is the difference between a senior and a veteran on Social Security?

I think it's time I ran for office

The fact that inflation is so low that it does not trigger an adjustment in Social Security benefits does not matter to politicians (who dare we mention, made that law in the first place). Because there is no adjustment in the Social Security benefit for most beneficiaries, there is also no increase in the Medicare Part B premium – a young family should be so lucky to see their health insurance premium frozen.

Those of us who are over 65 are already consuming a disproportionate percentage of America’s resources we do not deserve more.

Here is how Speaker Pelosi puts it.  Note that there is a “bedrock promise of economic security”  I wonder who else has such a bedrock promise?  I thought the promise of America was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Seniors Protection Act, introduced by subcommittee Chairman Earl Pomeroy, provides America’s seniors and all Social Security recipients with a one-time payment that will help millions make ends meet during these difficult economic times.

In the event that the Social Security Administration announces it will not provide a Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) for recipients this year, the House will vote to provide seniors with a one-time payment of $250. I have asked the Ways and Means Committee to bring this legislation to the floor during the lame duck session. All Members of Congress should join us in supporting this legislation which will be fiscally responsible and upholds our bedrock promise of economic security for our nation’s seniors.

There mere fact that Obama should support this additional spending (along with Pelosi and Reid) tells us something about his integrity and ethics.  This is blatant politics aimed at winning more votes on November 2.  It should also tell us something about the dangers of entitlements as Americans become more and more dependent on what the government doles out and politicians become more responsive to ever-growing demands.  At a time when Social Security is running a deficit of its own, when health care reform is adding to entitlements, when the U.S. is struggling to compete with the rest of the world and the economic future of our children is teetering, what responsible person would propose spending more of what we do not have to spend?  Apparently, a politician would.

Let’s hope Bank of American holds the mortgage on the U.S. Treasury, at least we know they will not be able to figure out how to foreclose.

Lest you think only future promises are used to lure the voters with goodies, consider this use of an existing “benefit”:

“A monthly deduction for commuter cost.”

So touts a political ad for New York’s Sen. Chuck Schumer’s relection.  At a time of fiscal uncertainty and unprecedented federal debt you would think such a claim would be the last thing a politician would want to be associated with. Apparently, that is not the case because this is a benefit for “middle class” Americans.

No comments yet

What's on your mind?