Question US
Social Security announced that there will be no cost of living increase for at least two years. Does this make Obama look worse?
Plantgypc August 26, 2009 13:57:57
- 73 answers
- Read all 157 comments
- +17 raves
Sunday, August 23, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.
The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.
By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.
"I will promise you, they count on that COLA," said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal."
Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.
Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.
"For many elderly, they don't feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. "Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses."
About 50 million retired and disabled Americans receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. All beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982.
More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan. About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration.
Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors' visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients.
There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.
Kennelly's group wants Congress to increase Social Security benefits next year, even though the formula doesn't call for it. She would like to see either a 1 percent increase in monthly payments or a one-time payment of $150.
The cost of a one-time payment, a little less than $8 billion, could be covered by increasing the amount of income subjected to Social Security taxes, Kennelly said. Workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income, a limit that rises each year with the average national wage.
But the limit only increases if monthly benefits increase.
Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn't get an increase when inflation is negative.
They note that recipients got a big increase in January -- after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government's economic stimulus package.
"Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt," said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "Congress has to be able to tell people they are not getting everything they want."
Social Security is also facing long-term financial problems. The retirement program is projected to start paying out more money than it receives in 2016. Without changes, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, according to the Social Security trustees' annual report this year.
President Barack Obama has said he would like tackle Social Security next year, after Congress finishes work on health care, climate change and new financial regulations.
Lawmakers are preoccupied by health care, making it difficult to address other tough issues. Advocates for older people hope their efforts will get a boost in October, when the Social Security Administration officially announces that there will not be an increase in benefits next year.
"I think a lot of seniors do not know what's coming down the pike, and I believe that when they hear that, they're going to be upset," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is working on a proposal for one-time payments for Social Security recipients.
"It is my view that seniors are going to need help this year, and it would not be acceptable for Congress to simply turn its back," he said.
WASHINGTON -- Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.
The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.
By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.
"I will promise you, they count on that COLA," said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal."
Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.
Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.
"For many elderly, they don't feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. "Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses."
About 50 million retired and disabled Americans receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. All beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982.
More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan. About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration.
Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors' visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients.
There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.
Kennelly's group wants Congress to increase Social Security benefits next year, even though the formula doesn't call for it. She would like to see either a 1 percent increase in monthly payments or a one-time payment of $150.
The cost of a one-time payment, a little less than $8 billion, could be covered by increasing the amount of income subjected to Social Security taxes, Kennelly said. Workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income, a limit that rises each year with the average national wage.
But the limit only increases if monthly benefits increase.
Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn't get an increase when inflation is negative.
They note that recipients got a big increase in January -- after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government's economic stimulus package.
"Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt," said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "Congress has to be able to tell people they are not getting everything they want."
Social Security is also facing long-term financial problems. The retirement program is projected to start paying out more money than it receives in 2016. Without changes, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, according to the Social Security trustees' annual report this year.
President Barack Obama has said he would like tackle Social Security next year, after Congress finishes work on health care, climate change and new financial regulations.
Lawmakers are preoccupied by health care, making it difficult to address other tough issues. Advocates for older people hope their efforts will get a boost in October, when the Social Security Administration officially announces that there will not be an increase in benefits next year.
"I think a lot of seniors do not know what's coming down the pike, and I believe that when they hear that, they're going to be upset," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is working on a proposal for one-time payments for Social Security recipients.
"It is my view that seniors are going to need help this year, and it would not be acceptable for Congress to simply turn its back," he said.
|
Yes
84%
61 votes |
|
No
16%
12 votes |
SodaHead Hot Trends
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
http://www.foxnews.com/politi...
http://cohen.house.gov/index....
Yes
No
Yes
Oh, yeah. barry is so wonderfull
Yes
a stimulus bill is wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities." AKA ACORN
As of March 20,2009 and Obama has spent around $2,600,000,000,000 dollars so far in office.
Gave Hamas $900 Million
Lifted ban on abortion funding overseas
Appointed several tax cheats to his cabinet thus displaying widespread incompetence
Supported the pork-filled stimulus bill thus abusing the system because "you never want a serious crises to go to waste"
Nationalizing banks and the auto industry at a rapid pace thus bringing the nation to a more socialist state
Tripled the national debt
Quadrupled the federal budget
Spent billions of dollars on GM and Chrysler so that they could either go bankrupt or sell out to foreigners
But since Obama took office, Congress approved his $787-billion stimulus plan. In addition, the new Administration had reign over the second half of the $700-billion bank bailout program.
Nearly half of the $3.9 trillion of spending in the current fiscal 2009 budget will now be borrowed, thanks in part to the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, every penny of...
a stimulus bill is wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities." AKA ACORN
As of March 20,2009 and Obama has spent around $2,600,000,000,000 dollars so far in office.
Gave Hamas $900 Million
Lifted ban on abortion funding overseas
Appointed several tax cheats to his cabinet thus displaying widespread incompetence
Supported the pork-filled stimulus bill thus abusing the system because "you never want a serious crises to go to waste"
Nationalizing banks and the auto industry at a rapid pace thus bringing the nation to a more socialist state
Tripled the national debt
Quadrupled the federal budget
Spent billions of dollars on GM and Chrysler so that they could either go bankrupt or sell out to foreigners
But since Obama took office, Congress approved his $787-billion stimulus plan. In addition, the new Administration had reign over the second half of the $700-billion bank bailout program.
Nearly half of the $3.9 trillion of spending in the current fiscal 2009 budget will now be borrowed, thanks in part to the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, every penny of which was deficit spending. The bill contained a provision that increased the statutory limit on the national debt by the total amount in the bill. President Obama might as well have signed that law in a pen with red ink.
http://www.thenewamerican.com...
In Addition to the Following:
* 2 billion Blagojevich earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL
* $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
* $3 million for purchasing “neighborhood electric vehicles” (golf carts)
* $5.5 billion for making federal buildings “green” (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
* $650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
* $1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
· $200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
* $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
* $75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
* $750 earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
* $224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
* $198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
* $10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
* $850 million for Amtrak
* $100 million for lead paint hazard reduction
* $39 billion slush fund for “state fiscal stabilization” bailout
* $275 million for flood prevention
* $65 million for watershed rehabilitation
* $255 million for “priority procurements” at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)$650 million for abandoned mine sites
* $1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for “science” at NASA)
* $100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
* $10 million for urban canals
* $1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though the original section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
* $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
* $500 million for State and local fire stations
* $180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
* $500 million for wildland fire management
* $110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* $522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
* $412 million for CDC headquarters
* $500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
* $100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
* $300 million for constructing Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office buildings
* $800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
* $307 million for constructing National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) office buildings
* $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) office buildings
* $160 million for “volunteers” at the Corp. for National and Community Service
TOTAL: $62 Billion
The Obama Budget: Spending, Taxes, and Doubling the National Debt
by Brian M. Riedl
Backgrounder #2249
During his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised the American people a "net spending cut."1 Instead, he signed a "stimulus" bill that spends $800 billion, and he has proposed a budget that would:
Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade;
Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout;
Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretionary spending;
Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over pre-recession levels;
Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade;
Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that would violate it by $3.4 trillion;
Assume a rosy economic scenario that few economists anticipate;
Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers; and
Double the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion after inflation).2
Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $32,000 per household by 2019— an inflation-adjusted $8,000-per-household expansion of government. Even the steep tax increases planned for all taxpayers would not finance all of this spending: The President's budget would add trillions of dollars in new debt.[1][2] http://www.heritage.org/resea...
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
It wasn't so long ago that one paycheck would support a family of four. Now it takes at least two paychecks or more! This is all thanks to the Federal Reserve, who has Obama's support.
a black hole called the Federal Reserve
Yes
Yes
No
But this has nothing to do with him, for once. COLA adjustments are based on GDP. There should be a negative COLA adjustment (checks would go down, not considering Medicare premiums), but that's forbidden by law. Last year's COLA adjustment of 5.8% was the largest in a long time, and is primarily due to the surge in energy prices last year. Absent the spike in energy prices, the COLA would have been small, if any at all.
*However* his policies and priorities now WILL affect future COLA adjustments as he holds economic recovery back with his insane spending. The economy is directly responsible for changes in SS, so SS is only indirectly affected through his effect on the overall economy. If he stifles the economy with ill-timed, mis-guided attempts at reform, then you can blame him next year.