Dems Offer Seniors a One-Time Payment, but There’s a Catch

By Rob Hotakainen, 10-26-16, at McClatchy:


Top Senate Democrats want Congress to approve a onetime $581 emergency payment for the more than 65 million retirees, veterans and Americans with disabilities who receive Social Security payments.

Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state and Chuck Schumer of New York said the payments would help those who were denied a cost-of-living adjustment in 2016 and who are set to receive an average raise of $5 per month – or 0.3 percent –in 2017. It would increase the average monthly payment from $1,355 to $1,360 per month.

Sen. Patty Murray said the $5 monthly raise for Social Security recipients is “woefully inadequate for Washington state seniors to keep up with the ever-increasing costs of everyday life.” And Sen. Chuck Schumer said that too many retirees are financially vulnerable and that Congress needs to help “make up for their lost dollars.”

While the increase is tied to the Consumer Price Index, Murray said it’s “woefully inadequate for Washington state seniors to keep up with the ever-increasing costs of everyday life.” And Schumer said that too many retirees are financially vulnerable and that Congress needs to help “make up for their lost dollars.”

Senate Democrats pushed the plan, called the Seniors and Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act, last year without luck.

Now it’s part of the post-election agenda that Democratic leaders will pursue if they win enough Republican seats Nov. 8 to take control of the Senate next year.

Should that happen, Schumer would replace Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as Senate majority leader, while Murray would lead the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee or possibly the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.

When Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren first introduced the bill, she said the $581 payment would represent a 3.9 percent increase for Social Security recipients, equal to the same percentage raise that most business executives received the previous year. Warren proposed that the payments be made as refundable tax credits.

Democrats want to pay for the legislation by changing a law that allows corporations to write off executive bonuses as a business expense for performance pay.

Murray said that ending the tax subsidies for corporate bonuses would help provide emergency relief to more than 1.2 million people in her state.

Schumer noted a precedent for the legislation, with Congress approving a $250 onetime payment for Social Security recipients in 2009 to help them get through the recession.

He said the extra $581 would be equal to three months of groceries for most seniors and that the emergency payment could also help them pay for out-of-pocket expenses for the prescription drugs they receive under Medicare.


Don’t be fooled into thinking the Democrats are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and finally taking pity on the citizens living on Social Security. They are not – this is a gimmick to get votes for Hillary and the Dem seats in the Senate. This proposed legislation has been floating around for years under various acronyms. First it was called RAISE in 2007, now it’s being called SAVE. (This seems to be a pattern  with the Dems’ – they love to play with nomenclature – first it was global warming, now it’s climate change)

Their proposed action on this hinges on them taking back control of the Senate, and the American seniors are supposed to follow the carrot to the voting booth. If it were in any way a genuine effort it would not be leverage on their winning those seats.

Since Warren proposed to make the payments in the form of a refundable tax credit, seniors wouldn’t actually receive one thin dime. While a tax credit is helpful, it doesn’t give the recipients a choice in how to spend it.

Their statement that the average monthly payment is $1355 would be laughable if it weren’t such a complete farce. Most people receive about $1000 or less per month, which is reduced by payments to Medicare, plus they usually have to pay for supplemental insurance and a prescription program.


Categories: General

Tags: , ,

8 replies

  1. Uh, do the math.
    3.9% of let’s say 15 – 20k is a hell of a lot of difference from 3.9 % of 6 & 7 figure incomes.
    AND, that pithy little amount will only be disbursed only if those thugs take over the Senate –
    AND, it is to be filed through next years tax returns.
    THAT, This is how gullible those thugs bully pulpit their crap onto society, that people who vote are nothing more than toilets to deposit the essence of their whorable excrement. (please excuse the French)


    • I don’t know how they came up with that odd dollar amount, but my math says that spread over a year, that would be an increase of $48 per month. Not great, but it would be a help to many people that are barely scraping by.


  2. >>:Murray said that ending the tax subsidies for corporate bonuses…”

    For quite some time now the Left has been taking liberties with the English language to push this theme that any reduction in a corporation’s tax bill equates to a “subsidy,” i.e. a gift from the federal government. They do so with the understanding that a lie, spoken often enough, becomes the truth, and they want the citizens to be nudged into seeing all business earnings as the property of the federal government. These are the kind of people we’re dealing with, and this is just another facet of the bloodless coup we’re fighting against.

    It’s time to phase out Social Security, because like any socialist program enables these schemes and guarantees Democrat support. Don’t announce it. Pretend you’re going to fix it, get elected, then institute a plan to phase it out. It’s the only way.


    • Yes, they continue to twist the English language to suit their needs. They call it subsidies like it was their money and they’re doing businesses a big favor by giving them a break.

      The social security system is badly broken, but I don’t see how it could be phases out after people have put money into it and continue to have it drawn from their paychecks today. I suppose it’s possible, but it would be a huge nightmare, and I’d hate to trust our government to get it right.


  3. This is so typical of democrat sleaze. It’s a brazen attempt to buy senior votes for what (some) seniors believe will be $581 in cash. It depends on seniors seeing that $581 as largess coming from democrats, not Republicans, and thereby affecting the senior vote.

    Some seniors will misunderstand and think that their monthly Social Security check will increase by $581; some will expect that their monthly check will increase by almost $50 and others will assume that a $581 lump sum check will be deposited to their account.

    All will be disappointed.

    If implemented (as Warren proposed) as a tax credit, it wouldn’t contribute a thing to monthly cash flow for the seniors, beneficial only when filing their taxes and if they owe anything.


    • All true Garnet, but most people eager for a little bonus won’t see the fine print and there will be much disappointment.

      I won’t go into the whole ‘it’s our money’ spiel, but there’s no way seniors should be beholden to the government for a piddly little COLA raise.


  4. A tax credit?

    I already have my finances structured so I don’t owe any taxes each year. So a tax credit sounds pretty useless to me.

    Stupid Dem/socialists can’t even do their bribing right.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: