Its Official No Social Security COLA in 2010

alatide · Oct 17, 2009

Its Official No Social Security COLA in 2010
Obama supports bills in Congress that would give beneficiaries a $250 payment
By: Carole Fleck | Source: AARP Bulletin Today | October 15, 2009

For the first time in 35 years, millions of older Americans won’t be getting a fatter Social Security payment next year. As expected, the Social Security Administration announced Thursday that there won’t be an automatic cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for 2010.

But beneficiaries can still hope for extra money. President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Congress to approve a new $250 payment to some 56 million people next year in lieu of a COLA. The payment, equal to a 2 percent increase, would go to those who receive Social Security retirement or disability benefits, veterans benefits, and to railroad retirees and retired public employees who don’t get Social Security. A $250 payment for many of the same people was included in the huge federal stimulus package approved earlier this year.

Obama’s proposal, which is similar to several bills in Congress, would cost about $13 billion. Michael J. Astrue, commissioner of Social Security, called on lawmakers Thursday to support Obama’s plan.
Plea for ‘those hardest hit’

“Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession,” Obama said. “This additional assistance will be especially important in the coming months, as countless seniors and others have seen their retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of this economic crisis.”

targus · Oct 17, 2009

Isn't this like the third or fourth thread on this same subject - if not the same article?

saturneptune · Oct 17, 2009

There should be no social security cola. Most people are collecting social security in multiples of what they ever paid into it. When the law was set up, it explicitly said, the purpose of social security was not ever meant to be a single source of income. People over the years should have either contributed to their employer retirement or saved for themselves. And yes, it can be done regardless of income, since when I was raising a family, I had only a high school education, paid off my house and put both kids through college with a bachelor's degree and no college loans.

exscentric · Oct 17, 2009

I received a letter from SS telling me this couple months ago so why are we hearing this as NEW???????????????

billwald · Oct 17, 2009

If the cost of living has dropped then there should be a SS cut in payments.

exscentric · Oct 17, 2009

"If the cost of living has dropped then there should be a SS cut in payments."

Should probably work that way in the secular too but doesn't usually.

I personally don't see that the cost of living has declined, everything I buy has gone up drastically in the last year with the exception of computers/parts which are about the same.

alatide · Oct 17, 2009

billwald said: ↑

If the cost of living has dropped then there should be a SS cut in payments.
Click to expand...

The article makes the point that the cost of medical care is still rising because we have a very inefficient system. This cost falls more on the elderly who have more health care problems than the young.

Joseph M. Smith · Oct 17, 2009

Because inflation has slowed or even reversed, and the SS COLA will be zero, I know of some churches that are planning zero COLAs for their church staff this coming year. The District of Columbia Baptist Convention will vote in a about a week on a budget that contains no raises for staff. Now will this show up all across the board throughout our economy, or will there still be many who will expect some raise as a matter of right?

Salty · Oct 17, 2009

Due to the loss of taxes, our county has a budget shortfall. The contract for union county govt workers call for a 3% pay raise. The County Executive requested the union forgo the pay raise this year to balance the budget. The union leadership gave a resounding no!!! They demand the county go by the contract with the union.

So thats exactly what the county is doing - going by the contract with the 3% pay raise, and laying off 150 workers.

Be careful what you ask for, you may actually get it.

And I understand, the union leadership refused to allow a union vote.

Winman · Oct 17, 2009

SALTCITYBAPTIST said: ↑

Due to the loss of taxes, our county has a budget shortfall. The contract for union county govt workers call for a 3% pay raise. The County Executive requested the union forgo the pay raise this year to balance the budget. The union leadershiop gave a resounding no!!! They demand the county go by the contract with the union.

So thats exactaly what the county is doing - going by the contract with the 3% pay raise, and laying off 150 workers.

Be carefule what you ask for, you may actually get it.

And I understand, the union leadership refused to allow a union vote.
Click to expand...

Ah, socialism at it's finest. Didn't they read Animal Farm? Only the piggies get to live in the farmhouse, everybody else stays outside. You may lose your job, but the union leadership will still be there.

Winman · Oct 17, 2009

The unions are all behind Obama's plan for good reason.

Why Organized Labor Supports Government Health Care
by James Sherk
WebMemo #2605
Unions strongly support President Obama's health care reform, which includes a plan for a government-run "public option" that would crowd out private health insurance. Labor publicly argues that the current health care system serves Americans poorly. However, unions also have self-interested motives for promoting government-run health care:

The legislation includes a $10 billion bailout of union retiree health plans;
Nationalized health care would lead to millions of new dues-paying union members as government employees unionize more frequently than private sector workers; and
National health care would also reduce unionized companies' competitive disadvantage.
However, unions do not support all health care reform plans. When Senators proposed taxing health benefits to pay for health care reform--a tax that would disproportionately fall on union members--the labor movement threatened to derail the legislation. Union support for health care reform is highly self-interested.

Unions Pushing for Government Health Care

Unions strongly support health care reform and have made supporting a "public plan" that would lead to a government-run single-payer system their top priority. In fact, after opponents protested at town hall meetings this summer, the AFL-CIO spent $15 million to stage counter-demonstrations with union members.[1]

Why has organized labor made government-dominated health care such a priority? The AFL-CIO publicly argues that the "real-world toll of soaring health care costs, lack of insurance and systemic flaws in our health care system must come to an end."[2] They further state that their goal "is to win secure, high-quality health care for all."[3] Many union leaders and activists do genuinely believe this. However, the labor movement has not spent such large sums of money campaigning for health care reform out of disinterested concern for the common good: Unions will benefit immensely if the government takes over the health care system.

Taxpayer Bailout

The most obvious benefit President Obama's health care plan provides to organized labor is a $10 billion taxpayer bailout for underfunded retiree health benefit plans. Many unions negotiate benefit packages that allow workers to retire early and collect health benefits until they qualify for Medicare. Many of these plans they are underfunded because unions mismanaged them.[4]

The healthcare legislation transfers $10 billion to these accounts, in the form of a reinsurance program that pays most of the cost of claims for workers in these plans.[5] Like the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the health care legislation requires all taxpayers--including low income workers without retirement plans--to pay for benefits for already well-compensated union workers.

Government Health Care Facilitates Unionization

Government-dominated health care would transform union organizing. Whether or not the government explicitly nationalizes the health care industry, government funding and government-dictated standards eliminate competition. Under health care reform, unionized hospitals would not face a competitive disadvantage because no competition would exist. All health care workers would become quasi-public employees. Whatever costs unions increased would be passed on to the taxpayer and not threaten union members' jobs. For instance, taxpayers would cover the costs of reduced productivity due to inflexible union work rules. Prospective union members would know this and, as a result, become more likely to unionize. Every step toward government-run health insurance vastly simplifies the process of organizing new union members and keeping existing union members employed.

This is precisely what happened in Canada, a nation culturally and economically similar to the United States, but with government-run single payer health care. While only 18 percent of nurses belong to unions in the United States, 78 percent do in Canada.[6] A full 61 percent of all Canadian health care workers belong to unions, well above the 11 percent in the United States.[7]

Given these figures, it is no wonder that the Service Employees International Union supports government-dominated health care so strongly. The SEIU represents health care workers. Under a government-run health care system, the SEIU could easily organize millions of new members who would then pay billions of dollars in mandatory dues. For example, if unions organized nurses at the same rate in America as they do under Canada's national health care system, they would bring in two million new members paying roughly $1.8 billion a year in dues.[8] Whatever its effects on the overall quality of health care, government health care would bring a financial windfall to the labor movement.

Reduce Unions Competitive Disadvantages

Unions who do not represent health care workers will also benefit from this law because it reduces competition. Unions negotiate gold-plated health benefits for their members that raise their employer's costs. Such expensive benefits, however, put unionized firms at a competitive disadvantage.

However, if the government provided health care coverage through insurance exchanges, then taxpayers--not consumers--would foot the bill for health costs. This would reduce unionized companies competitive disadvantage.

Unions Oppose Legislation They Must Pay For

Union support for health care reform does, however, have its limits. In particular, organized labor does not support health care reform for which it might have to help pay.

For example, Senate Democrats considered paying for the health care reform through taxing employer-provided health benefits. Such taxes would have fallen heavily on union members, since both private and public sector unions have negotiated expensive health benefit plans.

When news reports leaked that the Senate was considering such taxes the labor movement moved to quickly derail that idea. A coalition of 30 major unions sent letters to the Senate expressing their "strong opposition to any proposal that would pay for this reform by altering the tax treatment of employer provided health care."[9] Behind the scenes Organized Labor made it clear they opposed and would defeat any health reform that taxed employer health benefits.[10]

Organized labor supports health care reform only insofar as it benefits unions and their members. Despite their public arguments that the "real-world toll of soaring health care costs, lack of insurance and systemic flaws in our health care system must come to an end," the union movement will not sacrifice its own interests "to win secure, high-quality health care for all."[11]

A Financial Windfall for Unions

Unions claim that they support health care reform out of concern for workers' well-being. Many union leaders genuinely do, but the labor movement as a whole fights for government-run health care out of self interest. The health care reform legislation includes a $10 billion bailout of underfunded union health plans. More significantly, a government takeover of the health care sector would ease union organizing by eliminating competition and turning health care workers into quasi-public employees, as has happened in Canada. Unions would collect billions of dollars of new dues from millions of new workers. Government health care also reduces the competitive disadvantage unionized companies face in the marketplace.

Health care reform means a financial windfall for unions. However, unions oppose health care reform for which they must pay. Congress should not pass any "public plan" that would lead to the government directly or indirectly controlling health insurance at the behest of self-interested union lobbying.

James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
Click to expand...

alatide · Oct 17, 2009

Joseph M. Smith said: ↑

Because inflation has slowed or even reversed, and the SS COLA will be zero, I know of some churches that are planning zero COLAs for their church staff this coming year. The District of Columbia Baptist Convention will vote in a about a week on a budget that contains no raises for staff. Now will this show up all across the board throughout our economy, or will there still be many who will expect some raise as a matter of right?
Click to expand...

My company declared a zero raise for this year for management and professionals. Of course, the unions threatened to strike and they got raises. They also have better health care plans than management and better pension plans. Unions had their day but now they are very much a part of the problem.

targus · Oct 17, 2009

alatide said: ↑

My company declared a zero raise for this year for management and professionals. Of course, the unions threatened to strike and they got raises. They also have better health care plans than management and better pension plans. Unions had their day but now they are very much a part of the problem.
Click to expand...

How odd.

Your profile lists your occupation as "retired".

saturneptune · Oct 18, 2009

alatide said: ↑

My company declared a zero raise for this year for management and professionals.
Click to expand...

I thought McDonalds was doing better than that.

Salty · Oct 18, 2009

saturneptune said: ↑

I thought McDonalds was doing better than that.
Click to expand...

Do you trust CNN ?

faithgirl46 · Oct 18, 2009

Iam not shocked. The senior citzens will fight back when the elections come around

Salty · Oct 18, 2009

faithgirl46 said: ↑

Iam not shocked. The senior citzens will fight back when the elections come around
Click to expand...

But why - and if they do, will they support workers in Colorado?

alatide · Oct 18, 2009

targus said: ↑

how odd.

Your profile lists your occupation as "retired".
Click to expand...

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

rbell · Oct 19, 2009

Joseph M. Smith said: ↑

Because inflation has slowed or even reversed, and the SS COLA will be zero, I know of some churches that are planning zero COLAs for their church staff this coming year. The District of Columbia Baptist Convention will vote in a about a week on a budget that contains no raises for staff. Now will this show up all across the board throughout our economy, or will there still be many who will expect some raise as a matter of right?
Click to expand...

I requested that my church not give me a raise.

I can't control if they do, but if they do, they'll "get it back," in the plate.

We need more space at our church, and I want whatever they'd pay more to go to that. I'm paid a great, very fair wage by my church, and I don't need any more.

I do get a say in what I receive as "ministry expenses" reimbursed to me (things like books, keyboard & band stuff for me, mileage, and admission to kids events). Gas went down, so I'm actually requesting less this year.

I'm with you, Joseph. I'm bothered by folks in all walks of life that simply think that a yearly raise is supposed to happen. Now...if the economy's doing good, and you're a good employee, and your business is good...if you aren't given a raise, you're not currently overpaid...that might speak ill of the employer, and it might be time to change jobs. But if some of the above conditions aren't true...well, it would be bad business for the employer to give you one.

That's one reason Alabama's schools are such a mess...raises are pretty much automatic...whether they can be afforded or not. But the union goons have brainwashed the masses and strongarmed the politicians into "raise is a right" thinking.

Its Official No Social Security COLA in 2010

alatide New Member

targus New Member

saturneptune New Member

exscentric Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

billwald New Member

exscentric Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

alatide New Member

Joseph M. Smith New Member

Salty 20,000 Posts Club
Administrator

Winman Active Member

Winman Active Member

alatide New Member

targus New Member

saturneptune New Member

Salty 20,000 Posts Club
Administrator

faithgirl46 Active Member
Site Supporter

Salty 20,000 Posts Club
Administrator

alatide New Member

rbell Active Member

Useful Searches

Its Official No Social Security COLA in 2010

alatide New Member

targus New Member

saturneptune New Member

exscentric Well-Known Member Site Supporter

billwald New Member

exscentric Well-Known Member Site Supporter

alatide New Member

Joseph M. Smith New Member

Salty 20,000 Posts Club Administrator

Winman Active Member

Winman Active Member

alatide New Member

targus New Member

saturneptune New Member

Salty 20,000 Posts Club Administrator

faithgirl46 Active Member Site Supporter

Salty 20,000 Posts Club Administrator

alatide New Member

rbell Active Member

exscentric Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

exscentric Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Salty 20,000 Posts Club
Administrator

Salty 20,000 Posts Club
Administrator

faithgirl46 Active Member
Site Supporter

Salty 20,000 Posts Club
Administrator