Cash for Clunkers Redux

First and foremost, let me say that I have already apologized to my Mom for the title of this post. I don’t want that hanging over my head as you read this. But I’m thinking Cash for Clunkers – the name of the program that rewarded people who foolishly drove inefficient, costly vehicles for the past several years and then ‘found religion’ and got a newer, more efficient car using our tax dollars – would be a great name for a bailout program designed to give seniors a payment in lieu of COLA. Read on.

Back on May 2, 2009, the New York Times published this article which projected that there would not be a cost of living allowance in 2010 or 2011 for the 50 million of our friends, family and the total strangers who receive Social Security.

For some reason or another, I don’t recall hearing much about this back then; it wasn’t until yesterday’s news that I heard the AP story that sounds pretty much like what the NYT had a few months ago. There’s some added commentary in this version of the story, including a proposal that a one-time bonus of $150 be given to beneficiaries. This will only cost about $8 billion, according to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM); the costs, they figure, could be covered by an increase in the income eligible for social security taxes.

Back in July, the NCPSSM sent a letter to US Senators asking them to do something about the COLAs in light of retirement income losses and likely increases in the amount Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay for health care services or health insurance premiums. And chances are, the senators will listen, and the COLAs will be restored.

My favorite Social Security recipient is my Mom. And trust me, she’s no clunker. She’s busier at 79 than many people half her age can imagine. In many respects, she’s fortunate – she’s got a pension, and she has a health insurance plan that picks up the bulk of what Medicare doesn’t and also includes a strong pharmacy benefit program that pays all but a small co-pay on her prescriptions. All things being equal, she should be able to hold on to these going forward. So, when it comes to being concerned about Mom not getting a raise for the next couple of years, it’s not the health insurance costs that I’m really worried about.

It’s the school taxes, town taxes, county taxes, and all the other taxes that are being raised; her house was recently revalued, and that’s going to have an impact for a few years. And it’s not just the taxes, it’s the fees that are being rolled out or increased (to protect politicians who swore off tax increases). It’s all of those things that apparently don’t go into the calculation for inflation, but which do come out of her wallet, that are going to make it harder for her to enjoy the next two years with no raise.

Now, don’t worry… if she needs anything, we’ll find a way to help her out. And I appreciate that everyone has to do some belt-tightening, and she’s no different. But it is hard now to watch us sort of ignore our seniors, while at the same time we’re giving well over 150 million dollars (in New York alone) to public assistance recipients, free and clear; and when we’re (as mentioned above) spending $3 billion to reward people who were too foolish to give up their gas-guzzlers years ago like My Sweet Baboo did; and when we’re doling out $750 billion Bush dollars and $787 billion Obama dollars to help the banks, auto companies, and bad mortgage lenders and recipients.

At a time when we’re watching governmental jurisdictions of all levels – from the state of California to the County of Onondaga to all the cities, towns, and villages in between - try to cover massive deficits, it’s pretty easy to see that the folks who have paid their dues and are now on fixed incomes might be in need of some assistance. I’d rather see something go their way – within reason, and with a means test, of course – than to some of the places we’ve been throwing money lately.

Thoughts?