"What a revoltin'development dis is!" Jimmy Durante
I admit to having been asleep at the switch yesterday, at least, in terms of the news. I missed the uproar, wait, wait ... don't tell me there was none! This just in. The National Women's Law Center reports the proposed 2013 cost of living increase for Social Security retirement beneficiaries is a walloping 1.7%. Disgusting, yes, but this is only the tip of an iceberg, waiting to crush retirement dreams and retirees in this country, while so many families and their elderly members are drowning in icy waters, as it is.
One of the first blunders of the Obama Administration, of the President himself, was to use seniors, the disabled and active military members, as rhetorical pawns in the budget crisis. Oh, but that was years ago, so focusing on the now, we learned this morning from NWLC, on the table are cuts to Social Security benefits, very subtly designed to look far less devastating than they would actually be. The article on the NWLC site this morning explains that the Cost of Living increase has been based upon the CPI, the Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers. Proposed and under consideration is to base the COLA on a new CPI, the "Chained CPI."
The NWLC concerns itself with the welfare of American women, because of the disproportionate number of elderly women, who live below the poverty line. However, of course, the proposal would affect elderly men, particularly those who are already struggling. Here is a link to the graphic, which shows the progression of cuts over years:
https://www.facebook.com/nationalwomenslawcenter
Read it and weep. This was, by the way, part of the Bowles-Simpson plan, to reduce the federal deficit, promoted by our Senate's beloved Gang of Six.
Read it and weep. This was, by the way, part of the Bowles-Simpson plan, to reduce the federal deficit, promoted by our Senate's beloved Gang of Six.
Why on earth would the Administration engage in considering this? Before you answer, please do not allude to how Social Security is or will be broke! That is a myth and a lie. Please, also, call the term entitlement program, as it relates to Social Security, a misrepresentation and a travesty. We paid into Social Security. The only reason Social Security was on the table, during the budget crisis was the federal government's "right" to borrow from the Social Security Trust. This is an election year, and President Obama wants to avoid the appearance of being characterized by the opposition as a spendthrift at a Macy's sale.
What is the correct answer to the eventuality of a "broke" Social Security Trust (which wouldn't happen, in any case, until thirty years down the line.) There is an answer, a clean, straightforward, effective answer: Lift the current cap on the payroll tax. Why not, you may ask? It is simple. The power structure of think tankers, politicians, lobbyists and media pundits, whom I will refuse to call journalists are working and aging, just as are we, so this would affect them.
Legislators who speak of increasing the retirement age won't be affected by
the increase, either, as they are among the few privileged to work, if they wish, in their highly salaried positions or in private law practices ... way beyond the time, when any of them can keep up a pretense of competence. So, in fact, this is the ultimate coward's answer.
Well, I think were done here, except to ask, where are the big organizations like AARP in all of this? We know the President isn't going to stand up; we also know, by now, by voting for him, we are voting for the lesser of two evils. The entire nation needs to be involved in this dialogue. My children reach out to help me, when I stumble or fall financially. One daughter is over 50; the other children are pushing 50 and pushing 40. The grandchildren are entering, have entered, the workplace.
I know I've violated Jimmy's rule ... I haven't left you laughin'. I hope I've left you mad enough to voice your objections.
What is the correct answer to the eventuality of a "broke" Social Security Trust (which wouldn't happen, in any case, until thirty years down the line.) There is an answer, a clean, straightforward, effective answer: Lift the current cap on the payroll tax. Why not, you may ask? It is simple. The power structure of think tankers, politicians, lobbyists and media pundits, whom I will refuse to call journalists are working and aging, just as are we, so this would affect them.
Legislators who speak of increasing the retirement age won't be affected by
the increase, either, as they are among the few privileged to work, if they wish, in their highly salaried positions or in private law practices ... way beyond the time, when any of them can keep up a pretense of competence. So, in fact, this is the ultimate coward's answer.
Well, I think were done here, except to ask, where are the big organizations like AARP in all of this? We know the President isn't going to stand up; we also know, by now, by voting for him, we are voting for the lesser of two evils. The entire nation needs to be involved in this dialogue. My children reach out to help me, when I stumble or fall financially. One daughter is over 50; the other children are pushing 50 and pushing 40. The grandchildren are entering, have entered, the workplace.
I know I've violated Jimmy's rule ... I haven't left you laughin'. I hope I've left you mad enough to voice your objections.
Yours, from the Financial Ragged Edge,
Kathleen
Kathleen
No comments:
Post a Comment