Morning Fog

250 For Seniors - Cash For Clunkers Again?

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.   

Geezers In The Crosshairs - Not!

Old folks (like me, for example) might look around them these days and think somebody's really trying to do them in.  No social security COLA for two years, they're monkeying with health care, ex-Alaska-Governor Palin is suggesting "death panels," and dad-burn it, we're not even first priority for swine flu shots!  On top of that, Republican national chairperson Michael Steele is waving around some kind of "contract" he claims to have with older Americans -- where did that come from all of a sudden, and what's it going to cost?

Well, if all this is making you feel as confused as the guy who lost his chewing gum on the floor of the henhouse, don't get all upset.  It's not as terrible as it sounds.  Once again, there's a lot of politically motivated fear-mongering out there, along with some really bad media reporting.  Here are a few points worth considering:

Social security:  That 5.8% last year was pretty nice, wasn't it?  And even though we all know that the cost-of-living calculation is an imperfect instrument that usually trails real inflation in the things that seniors have to buy (health care, utilities, food, shelter), it's nice that it can't be taken back.  So in times like these, when the economy is weak and inflation is low, we can be happy that we're really not losing anything.  In fact, Chuck Blahous, the Director of Bush's social security commission in 2001, points out that for most older folks, "zero COLA" still results in a net gain.  Far from feeling deprived, seniors should pat themselves on the back; no COLA means that more government resources can be focused on helping their sons, daughters, and grandchildren -- all those younger people who are losing their jobs or their houses or having trouble making ends meet.

Palin's "death panels:"  In my experience, older people are often far more realistic about the Grim Reaper than their kids or other caregivers.  Many have very specific ideas about DNRs, end-of-life care, and such, but those who do not, or may not have thought about it, might find that an opportunity to discuss such issues with their doctor would be welcome.  Some versions of health care reform bills suggest that such a consultation be required.  Is "mandatory" necessary?  Maybe not, but I don't see a lot of harm in it.  On the other hand, Sarah Palin has dreamed up a concept of government "death panels" that she says would make life-and-death decisions for people, push the old toward euthanasia, and so forth.  What can she be thinking?  I think that's a terrible idea!  Again, though, I'm not concerned; I believe that wiser and more humane heads will protect us from Palin's Panels.

Then, there's the new "Seniors' Healthcare Bill of Rights," touted recently by Republican chairperson Michael S. Steele.  Wow!  It's a tapestry of lies and misrepresentations, starting from the point where he says Republicans "believe reforms are necessary."  If they did, we would already have had reforms about six years ago.  Could it be accidental that the letters of Steele's name, rearranged, spell out "Scheme, lie, steal"? I don't know about the "steal" part, but I can tell you, I stepped out my front door Monday morning and tripped over Steele's nose.  Moreover, this "Bill of Rights" has nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with politics.  Because seniors vote in larger numbers than other groups, the Republican Party has carefully crafted this masterpiece of pandering to appeal to, or frighten, seniors. 

Most offensive about all these efforts that seem to "target" seniors, I think, is the assumptions they make:  Seniors are befuddled, dumb, and selfish; they can't think for themselves; they will allow themselves to be stampeded by fear.   Fortunately, that's not me, and it's not the elder population I know.  The "greatest generation" is/was characterized by their commitment to independence, justice, and duty, and by their shared sense of our unity as a nation.  I presume they will resent attempts to mislead them, assess facts (not allegations) for themselves, recognize that most of the dire scenarios they're being warned of are illusory, and reject selfishness in favor of solutions that work to everyone's benefit. 

For Generations

During my professional life, I spent many an hour sitting through various sociological seminars.  They came in waves of trendiness, like the flavor of the month at the ice cream shop:  leadership, management, sensitivity, diversity. cross-culturalism.  They were supposed to make us smarter, more understanding, and better, more productive employees/managers.  But they always seemed pretty useless to me -- some consultant being paid to explain what basic common sense, and a general consciousness of the world around us, told us anyhow. 

Still, I don't rule out that there are people who go through life mostly unconscious, insensitive, and without common sense (you know the type - he's your boss, right?) and that such people might derive something useful from such seminars.  I suppose that's why the trend continues, with intergenerational interpretation leading the pack these days. 

There are blogs devoted to the subject, and today in the Washington Post you can read a portrait of one such consultant who in her sessions identifies the key characteristics and attitudes that help distinguish Gen Y from Gen X from Boomers (and even the poor pre-boomers, who never even got a name for themselves). 

It's an intriguing idea that generations in the workplace are so different now that they need to be interpreted to one another, and that hired experts are needed for the purpose.  Perhaps there's no harm in it, but I suspect it's very unnecessary.  Ms. Loehr makes the dubious assertion that the first decade of the 21st century is the "first time" four generations have been mingled in the workplace at once.  Really? It seems to me that's always been the case, but the generations have learned to work together without consultants' help.

Second, I have to wonder if the differences between the Gen Y/Millenials and their Gen X parents is really all that "different."  I sense that each generation, like Tolstoy's happy families, is different from the preceding one in much the same ways.  Ms. Loehr tells us that Gen Y is "authentically confident, well-educated, tolerant and diverse, community-focused, tech-savvy, and socially, politically and eco-conscious."   

My parents were born in 1904 and 1909, respectively (Gen Antediluvian).  They might not have used the same terms exactly (especially not the opaque phrase 'authentically confident') yet in comparing me or my sister to themselves, they probably would have come up with much the same concepts.  They were less confident, for example, because their life experience included the Great Depression (which whacked them just as they were entering the work force), and mine did not.  If Gen Y is heavily into networking and contacts, isn't it largely because the technology of the cell phone and social networking websites makes it possible?  But my parents would have perceived that my generation was spending far too much time networking with friends on the telephone.  

Maybe the best lesson Ms. Loehr offers is that a member of one generation considering a member of another must realize it's "not bad or good, it's just what they grew up with."  Tolerance - OK.  But even that can be taken too far, if it's assumed that whatever you grew up with is enough to get you through life successfully.  A "new" generation may have its own take on things, but it will also quite naturally learn a few tricks from its parents' generation.  We humans pass down experience.  We haven't always needed interpreters to help us do so. 

Seniors And Digital Ageing

A personal friend, a senior citizen, responded to me directly regarding my recent posts about the future of news media (see under the media category, right column).  Her comments raised some interesting points about newspaper reading but also reminded me of some other ways in which seniors will need to adapt to the digital age (and the digital age to them).

One key point is the effect of failing eyesight on getting the news.  Not all seniors are affected by this (yet) but for those who are, as my friend points out, it can be a big obstacle.  Lest you suggest that modern browsers solve the problem by providing a choice of type-sizes and zooms up to several hundred percent, keep in mind that even for a 20/20 in his twenties, reading a web page at 200% magnification (or reading it on a tiny cell phone screen) is hardly convenient, as you'll be constantly having to scroll left, right, up and down just to read an item.  The jumble of webpage design, with popups, popunders (hey, have virtual poptarts or popovers been invented yet?), multiple columns, flash animation, and color, can also be more distracting, especially if you're trying to find something on that blown-up, run-off-the-margin screen.

My friend also points out that most oldsters don't have the fancy phones, or even laptops, so that means, as I pointed out earlier, a comfort disadvantage in online viewing.  Given all this, she concludes that, if forced to choose between an on-line news"paper" and no news at all, she'd opt to do without.

Another area I've found where seniors may increasingly have problems is in the miniaturization of digital equipment.  I'm a fan of the Kindle, but I have to admit - though I have no eye problems, the tiny close-packed buttons with their illegible gray legends, which you need to use to order books on it, are pretty inconvenient.  What would that be like for someone whose eyesight is going, or who just doesn't have the finger-flexibility they once had?  It's not that seniors aren't mentally alert enough, smart enough, or tech-savvy enough to operate a computer or a Blackberry - but the inevitable slowing down of the body's physical plant will eventually have some effect.

One more:  Banks and other institutions are increasingly pushing their online services - bill paying, investments, statements, and tax forms.  I know many seniors who are using these features enthusiastically, yet in the back of my mind, I realize that in this extremely important area of managing their money, seniors may get to the point where, because of physical or mental decline, they will run much higher risks of being victimized or just making choices they don't intend on such sites.  By the time that happens (assuming they recognize it), will there still be other options, or will paper statements and handwritten checks be out there in the landfill with those newspapers, never to be available again?

It's not that similar problems couldn't happen in the pre-digital age.  When my father died some years ago, and we looked at his checkbook, it was clear that his usually neat engineer's printing had given way to a nearly illegible scrawl in the last few checks he wrote before his death.  It's just that in the digital age, the sources of confusion, the chances for error, will be more widespread.  Sons, daughters, aging experts, and digital designers, I hope, will take note.