Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
A $250 Donation
Ellen Goodman
BOSTON -- This story begins, as do so many dramas, at the box office.
We are standing in line, three generations defined by a three-tier
price structure: senior, adult, child.
This provokes yet another rant from the eldest on the subject of senior discounts. Why, I ask again, should the "adult" who carries the financial burden of raising the "child" be charged more than her gainfully employed "senior"? Can't elders at least be offered the option of donating our senior discounts to some junior cause?
I repeat this dialogue and plot because my box office encounter occurred days after President Obama asked Congress to allocate $250 to the 57 million beneficiaries of Social Security and other federal entitlement programs, regardless of our income. This one-time special was framed as a way to compensate for the fact that older Americans won't get a cost-of-living increase in their 2010 checks. "Even as we seek to bring about recovery," said the president, "we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession."
Well, sure, but let's go to the numbers. This will be the first time in 34 years that seniors won't find a raise in their checks. We are not getting a cost-of-living increase for one simple reason: The cost of living has decreased. The checks that rose 5.8 percent last year -- largely on energy costs -- are already buying more this year.
As for the idea that those on Social Security were "hardest hit" by the recession, not so fast. There's evidence that older Americans suffered fewer mortgage foreclosures. They were no more affected by the stock market meltdown than other age groups, and retirees were obviously less affected by unemployment. And while, yes, they were hit by rising health care costs, were they hit harder than, say, citizens with no health insurance?
I'm not in the business of fomenting generational warfare. My own box office story ended with a modest generational transfer of income in the form of tickets. Nor do I believe in greedy geezers. But this is a $250 moment.
There is no question that some of the neediest Americans are elderly, especially single women. But age is not the same as income. Indeed, poverty among the elderly has gone down from 35 percent in 1959 to 10 percent in 2008. Today, elders are half as likely to be poor as are children.
So, why exactly would we give $250 to every senior at every income while poor children remain in deep trouble? How do we justify the transfer of $13 billion or $14 billion to seniors?
There are similar proposals in Congress where it is an article of faith that you never go wrong pleasing the elderly. Obama may be wooing a population that is least supportive of health care reform. But this is part of the same problem.
The president has long talked about "responsibility," especially among children. By 2030, about 20 percent of Americans will be over 65. What are we asking of them? To be nothing but passive recipients of entitlement? Is their only social responsibility to remain financially independent of their children?
The word senior already stretches over four decades of life. Social security checks go out to people who fought in World War II and people who were born in World War II. The first baby boomers are getting Social Security. Boomers have long been seen as the great change agents of America, ushering in one social movement after another. But there's a real risk that they could become an I've-got-mine resistance.
I've always thought that elders were the ones designated by society to take the long view -- back to the past and forward to a future when we won't even be around. In that long view, caring flows down the generations.
Now we face this tiny but telling test. The $250 moment. Wouldn't it be something if those of us on Social Security looked this particular gift horse in the mouth and said no to the Congress? And if a check arrives in the mail, wouldn't it be something if elders who are able, endorsed it to schools that are meagerly training the next generation of Social Security supporters?
Oh, did I mention that the movie we saw was "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs"? The preview for this country is "Aging With a Chance of Bankruptcy." And it's not just the box office treating seniors like children.
========
Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman1(at)me.com
Copyright 2009 Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 10/22/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
11-03-2009 15:27
JCE wrote:
It used to be that the people would let or make the elderly go out and die. It was thought that they were too old to be of use, and shouldn't be a drain on the community. Well, we have evolved. We can't legally do that. We have to keep them alive, and let them suffer. You would think that a country supposedly 80% Christian could follow the good book. You know, honor thy mother and father. Give to those who don't have. The American Indian was proud to take care of its people. But we have pretty much done that culture in. Now, it is all about money. As long as we are one of the few for profit health care countries left, we will make money of of the sick, the dying, and the elderly, with little or no respect for the people. As long as we have big business having a sacred right to make obscene profits, and all the republicans and most of the democrats support that money religion. We don't follow the Bible in this at all. We should take care of our people, and ensure that they can take care of themselves, and insist then that they do, but not leave them to rot when they can't. And this when 20 to 25% of our people have way too much land and money, another 25% barely enough, and the rest still not bragging. This is all the sign of a very sick country. Those who claim to be the 80% Christian are going to have a hell of a lot to explain on judgment day. And not much of a defense.
11-02-2009 14:48
The Professor wrote:
Are all seniors alike?
I've got news for you. I get a VERY small SS check because illness forced me into an early retirement. We just got a notice that my wife's Supplement is going up $40 a month. I haven't seen mine yet, but am afraid of what it will be. Gas has gone up, and even with an economy car we'll have to figure out how to pay the extra to make Dr. calls. We desperately need that "measly" $250 to give us a little help.
I'd like to see them limit the SS income level for granting it, but don't suggest I send it back. IN FACT IF YOU'RE SO DAMNED CHARITABLE THEN SEND IT TO ME--AT AGE 78 MY WIFE IS WORKING PART TIME AT A DEPARTMENT STORE TO KEEP OUR HEADS ABOVE WATER. AND IF SHE HAS TO QUIT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO AS WE CAN'T SELL OUR HOUSE AT THE CURRENT PRICES, SO TELL US WHY YOU THINK WE SHOULDN'T GET SOME LITTLE HELP
I'd like to see them limit the SS income level for granting it, but don't suggest I send it back. IN FACT IF YOU'RE SO DAMNED CHARITABLE THEN SEND IT TO ME--AT AGE 78 MY WIFE IS WORKING PART TIME AT A DEPARTMENT STORE TO KEEP OUR HEADS ABOVE WATER. AND IF SHE HAS TO QUIT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO AS WE CAN'T SELL OUR HOUSE AT THE CURRENT PRICES, SO TELL US WHY YOU THINK WE SHOULDN'T GET SOME LITTLE HELP
10-31-2009 14:05
slr wrote:
senior discounts
you are right. those who have should be giving to those who do not. at any age.
10-29-2009 02:30
woscar wrote:
COLA
The problem with the COLA is that it applies to what happened in the previous year. Last year, that worked to our advantage, as the cost of energy took an unexpected, but most welcome, downturn. This was my first year of qualifying for Medigap and Part D drug coverage. Due to a disability, I'd been on Medicare for a while, but was covered by my employer's health plan supplement. The switch actually lowered the cost of my insurance considerably. This past week, we received notices of coverage changes for both. The Medigap went up about 9%. Not exactly flat as a 0% COLA would lead you to believe, but at the upper end of my "guesstimate" of what it would be. I wasn't at all prepared for that Part D notice though. That increased 74%! I might be a Republican senior, but I'm on Obama's side in the healthcare debate.
10-28-2009 10:33
no1uno wrote:
huh?
Liberals don't care about the elderly. Liberals have taken over Washington and are trying to take over everything else. Liberals want old people to die. They said so in a recent article, I believe it was in the Washington Post(?).
To our beloved aging generation, there are younger folks out here who still love and cherish you. I hope that enough of us will stand up for you so that you don't have to die because you can't get any medicine or treatment from the government-run health system. It's a shame that the person who wrote this article is even allowed to vote.
To our beloved aging generation, there are younger folks out here who still love and cherish you. I hope that enough of us will stand up for you so that you don't have to die because you can't get any medicine or treatment from the government-run health system. It's a shame that the person who wrote this article is even allowed to vote.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View Politics ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
