BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!

I am 13 billion percent against the proposed one-time $250 payment to recipients of various forms of Social Security benefits. I picked that percentage because the total cost of the payout will be approximately $13 billion to the between 50 and 58 million SSI benefit recipients. For the sake of argument, I am using $13 billion as a mean. So a small $250 check results in a massive payment when millions of people are receiving it.

Administration officials said there were no plans to offset the cost but would negotiate with Congress to find a way to finance the payments. How can Washington give away money away they don’t have? Regular people can’t do that!

I am not a cold-hearted, tight-fisted, greedy Scrooge-like person for being against this plan. I understand that Social Security recipients did not receive a “raise” this year because there was no increase in the Cost of Living Allowance, but practically nobody working in the real world received a raise either. Government employee friends of mine, who normally live in a fantasy world, have not received raises for a number of years.

According to the Social Security Administration, every year, the government automatically adjusts Social Security payments based on the nation's inflation rate. For an increase in payments to occur, consumer prices must be higher than when the last increase was awarded. Consumer prices were NOT higher in the past year, so there should be no increase in benefits. The Democrats are looking to side-step the established rule.

So was this plan devised because politicians really care about seniors, people receiving SSI and veterans? Or is it because we have an election coming up? Ask House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who, of course, supports the measure and is terrified that the mid-term elections will change the course of Congress.

 

Tell 50 million Americans that you will be giving them money and they will vote for you. It is pay-for-play politics at its worst because it is being done on a national scale!

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made it tougher for Republicans to vote against the measure when he said, “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.” Worded that way, it makes it as difficult to vote, “No,” as it would be viewed to vote against pictures of cute babies and puppies!


Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, was at least a voice of reason. He said, "It will be difficult for many seniors to deal with the lack of a COLA [Cost of Living Allowance] for a second year in a row, but that will pale in comparison to the actual hardships future Social Security recipients will experience if Congress continues to ignore the program's underlying financial problems. We must put Social Security on a path to long-term solvency, and the sooner we do so, the better it will be for both taxpayers and beneficiaries alike."


To prove that I am not cold-hearted and randomly against spending $13 billion the country does not have, I have some other thoughts for the money. For the same expenditure, the government could foot the bill for every woman in America, who does not have health insurance coverage, to have a pap smear and a mammogram. We would take the left over money and pay for every uninsured child to have an eye exam and get glasses.


Money spent that way would benefit more than 50 million people and get Democrats all the votes they need. Plus, it would save lives, an even more important benefit.