OK, so maybe all us seniors aren't "clunkers." And we have reason to hope nobody's going to pour weird chemicals in us to freeze up our innards before we are taken to the junkyard (although we are reasonably certain that within the next few days someone, maybe Sarah Palin, is going to accuse the government of doing that).
But let's get serious: In other respects, the plan currently under discussion to offer seniors on social security a $250 stipend just because they aren't expected to get any cost-of-living increase this year, is just as unfair as "cash for clunkers" was. It may have some stimulative effect on the economy, but it is really money being spent for political, rather than economic reasons.
I'm affected by the CPI and the COLA it determines. I don't receive social security but as a federal retiree my pension (or "annuity," as they like to call it, since we contributed to it at a rate higher than the social security tax) has a COLA tied to the social security increases. So I'm aware that because the "consumer price index" measures prices of a lot of things that aren't necessities, seniors in recent years have generally lost ground against inflation by receiving the calculated amount. I'm aware also that there are seniors worse off than me who will welcome an additional $250. Hell, I would welcome it, too, but even if I were eligible, I wouldn't argue that I "deserve" it. Frankly, last year's increase was historically high (more than twice what it had been in recent years) and this year, if the numbers don't crunch up to show need for an increase, well fine, that's the way the system is supposed to work.
Why don't we let it work that way? One answer: Politics. (Same as for clunkers, by the way.) The Washington Post asked a variety of people to offer opinions on the $250 giveaway. Of those, I think Douglas Schoen, a "Democratic pollster and author," hit the nail on the head: Seniors, he notes, are concerned about health care costs; their views will be critical to support for reforms, and their votes will be critical to any party that wants to win in the 2010 elections. This at least is an honest response. Rudolf Penner, in the same article, was dishonest, choosing to pretend Republicans, if they were in power, wouldn't be doing the same dance. Congressman Boehner in fact admits that Republicans do have a plan to do the same thing, so I guess we can call him half-honest (for the first time in quite a while).
It's fundamentally unfair to single out seniors (or automobile dealers) for special financial stimuli. It seems to me that in this economy, many people may be worse off than many oldsters -- the seniors in line for these payments do have at least a trickle of steady income they've probably learned to live with. But what about the family in their 40's with a couple of kids and a mortgage, who have both lost their jobs and timed out of unemployment comp? Aren't they worse off? On the other side of the scale, what about military pensioners who may be only in their 40's or 50's, but are drawing pensions with COLAs based on the CPI; they're not seniors, and most of them probably have a second career, but will they be excluded from the $250 payments? (I don't know the answer.)
So if we're going to do this, couldn't we do it based on some kind of means test? How about those whose prior-year incomes were below some specified amount? Well, that's really moot. It's not about income, need, or stimulating the economy, it's about buying votes. It's popular with politicians on both sides of the aisle, so I hope I haven't alarmed anyone by putting the future of the plan in doubt. So, there's the answer. You seniors who do truly need the $250 stimulus, don't be alarmed, you're going to receive it, there's not the least doubt in my mind. Along with many others who don't need it nearly so badly.
Comments