Social Security freeze means seniors must scrimp
Photo 
Marie Arrasate, left, and Joan McGarr discuss the Social Security payment during an interview Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009 at the Southwest Focal Senior Center in Pembroke Pines, Fla. There will be no cost-of-living increase for more than 50 million Social Security recipients next year, the first year without a raise since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — If her check were bigger, 76-year-old Agnes Conti might be able to spring for a better cut of meat for her pot roast. She could afford to send her nine grandchildren more than $20 for their birthdays and Christmas. She'd be able to spring for some nice new clothes, like she sees on QVC, not what she settles for at Walmart.
If only. The government has said the Social Security checks Conti and tens of millions of other seniors rely on as their primary source of income will not increase next year as consumer prices have fallen overall. And while the retired hospital clerk will get by, she'll be watching her spending even closer, knowing she can't expect the annual raise she's been accustomed to.
"We were good citizens all our lives. We went to work, we lived by the book, we weren't on welfare, we didn't ask the city for anything," Conti said while taking a break from crafts at a senior center here. "And what do we get?"
At the Southwest Focal Point Senior Center in this Fort Lauderdale suburb, seniors lamented the cost-of-living freeze, praised a White House plan for $250 checks to soften the blow, but took all of the news in stride, saying they've had a lifetime of experience living on a fixed income and would manage with the money they currently receive.
Frank Ferreira sits in the center's lobby, near a decorative fireplace and an autumn centerpiece. The 90-year-old retired truck driver loves to sing, even practicing on a karaoke machine at home, and loves to dance even more. He gets about $890 a month from Social Security, most of which he hands over to his daughter to help pay his share of the bills.
The money isn't the biggest issue, Ferreira said. It's the message the government is sending about caring for seniors.
"I could use a little more, but that's all right, I get along," he said. "But I think that we deserve it, the elderly. You can't just discard them. You've got to help them."
Nearby, 89-year-old Miriam Danzinger is shuffling along with a walker. She gets about $1,300 monthly in Social Security, and after rent and other expenses, including a MediGap plan, she has little to spare. Her daughter helps pay her bills.
When her Chevrolet Cavalier broke down a few months back, Danzinger was forced to give it up. When she goes to the store, she's thrifty, having learned how to cut grocery costs when she ran a coffee shop. She lives as simply as possible.
"Listen, there's no money. People are going hungry," she said. "But what can I say? I'm only a little ant."
The freeze in next year's checks is the first since automatic Social Security cost-of-living increases were adopted in 1975, and follows a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982. By law, the adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year because of lower energy costs.
The Obama administration plan to send $250 stimulus payments to about 57 million seniors, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities, would amount to a roughly 2 percent raise for the average Social Security recipient. If approved, the checks would cost about $13 billion, though there is no plan yet how to finance them.
While seniors here have grown used to the annual raises, many of them said they're willing to cut the government some slack given the recession and the federal deficit.
"When they have the money, they give us the raise. If they don't have it, they don't have it," said Lucy Polieto, a retired waitress who lives in Southwest Ranches. She wears a glittery gold sweater and chains around her neck, and walks with a spry bounce that belies her 94 years. "Sometimes, I'm so surprised when I look at the check and I get a raise."
The news this week that checks would be stagnant is buffered by some positives: Seniors won't be getting any less than they already do, most recipients' Medicare part B premiums will freeze as well, and the president's plan could soften the blow. But because the stimulus payments would be a one-time check, not a raise that would continue over their lifetime, for many seniors it means thousands of dollars, compounded, that they'll never see.
For those in poverty, the raise could have made a huge difference. But for the average senior simply living on a fixed income, it is seen less in dollars and cents, and more in the tangible costs they might be more careful with.
Polieto cooks eggplant, chicken cacciatori and pasta fazool. A raise could have given her more leeway with her grocery bill.
"Then I could buy some steaks, maybe," she said. "But I'd rather have a pork chop."
Oct 16, 2009 at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
In a related event: Congratulatory messages poured into the White House this morning from global heads-of-state celebrating President Barack Obama’s dramatic rescue of a 6-year-old Colorado boy, whose apparent flight in an experimental balloon yesterday captivated viewers around the world.
While the White House declined to comment on how the president could have flown to Colorado, retrieved the boy from the balloon, and returned him safely to the attic of his family home, press secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama was “surprised and deeply humbled” by the international attention. "The One" stated he would use any reward money for the 'seniors'.
Oct 16, 2009 at 6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks for your development of some local sites and betting on their future potential. Why not use some quality local sub-contractors too? Just a thought. Keep up the good work.
Oct 16, 2009 at 5:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Did anyone notice that Social Security goes on, the increase did not kick in because inflation is way down, so costs are stable. In the past people got payments that were higher than inflation, and nobody complained. Now inflation is down, and the increase is not there, but nobody's payment got cut.
All this and seniors today are getting back money at the rate of $3 for every $1 put in. A pretty good deal.
Oct 16, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Many old people paid into this system all their life or at least for 40 yrs under the knowledge that when they did get old and needed medical care and help the government would be there for them. Now they are old and the Government is trying to figure a way out of the committment they made. So this is to the young folks, pay in and when you get up there in years---be told it won't be there when you need it. That's the way it is.
Oct 16, 2009 at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Saving and not spending money is okay, because most americans choose to save their money in the banking system and with that influx of cash. Banks can keep going."
False. Banks don't make much money from your savings. With less spending comes less economic activity. Businesses borrow less short-term money for inventory and operations, which means banks have fewer or smaller loans from which to make money. Less spending obviously means less (or no) profits for business, which means even less economic activity, and on and on. Saving is good, but too much saving in a recession is bad. It only prolongs the downturn.
"Bush had the better plan by giving money to the people (since it is our money anyhow), and letting them choose whether to pay down debts, spend on frivolous items, or sock it away, rather than giving it to big corporations who pay themselves, even though their business practices are a little shady."
And how did Bush's tax rebates work out for the economy?
Oct 16, 2009 at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
"He is trying to spend our way out of a recession. and that is only going to drive us deeper into one. If we would just let time take its course we would be in a healthier position.
.
Think about it this way. if you were $10,000 or more in credit card debt is the way to get out of debt by spending more and more money?? "
I'm not even sure where to start. A Recession is NOT caused by too much debt. Your credit card example makes no sense. We have "spent our way" out of EVERY recession, AND the Great Depression. Eventually, once the economy recovers, the debt has been reduced back to reasonable levels. Obviously, the same debt reduction will have to happen this time, eventually, like every other time. The recovery has hardly begun. The "wait and see" approach was tried after the Great Depression, and failed. Learn your history.
Oct 16, 2009 at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
MOST people won't be getting "raises" this year. Get over it, we're all making do with less.
Oct 16, 2009 at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
did anyone notice that the elderly who were interviewed were accepting it as a fact of life and being responsible by saying, "if they don't have it; they don't have it"...that is, imho, admirable! the generations to follow this strong and wise group of seniors won't be able to figure out how to survive in a few years, because they aren't able to substitute macaroni and cheese for a steak dinner. I'm embarrassed by those of you who think the elderly do not deserve our care, our assistance and our attention. They have earned it and have learned how to do without frivolous "stuff". perhaps we could learn a thing or two from them if we'd open our minds.
Oct 16, 2009 at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is all in line with what the Progressives want. They just can't understand why the elderly can't do the respectable thing and just die. To relieve the pressure on healthcare and the Billions borrowed from Soc Security.
For those who wont get this.... called satire..
Oct 16, 2009 at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
i agree this is Obama's problem. He is trying to spend our way out of a recession. and that is only going to drive us deeper into one. If we would just let time take its course we would be in a healthier position.
.
Think about it this way. if you were $10,000 or more in credit card debt is the way to get out of debt by spending more and more money?? Why would it be any different for our county? Saving and not spending money is okay, because most americans choose to save their money in the banking system and with that influx of cash. Banks can keep going. Bush had the better plan by giving money to the people (since it is our money anyhow), and letting them choose whether to pay down debts, spend on frivolous items, or sock it away, rather than giving it to big corporations who pay themselves, even though their business practices are a little shady.
.
Just my 2 cents.
Oct 16, 2009 at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Can anyone help me out here? Please let me know what one hopes to accomplish by arguing the level of responsiblity Bush or Obama should shoulder?
+
While it is lovely reading comments in which posters feel the need to blame either Bush or Obama, I'd urge everyone to remember that we should also look to the legislative branch of our government when trying to find out who to blame.
+
For those of you who are not interested in pissing and moaning about the past, and hope to actually make a difference, I urge you to pick up the phone and call your representatives. Find out what they're supporting and why. Let them know what you support...Remember they are supposed to serve us, not the other way around.
Oct 16, 2009 at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
It was not "The One" who did nothing to deal with this problem for 8 years. It was "The Dumb."
****
The honeymoon's over sweetheart, This is "the One's" problem - keep living in the past & you'll NEVER move forward.
Oct 16, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
It was not "The One" who did nothing to deal with this problem for 8 years. It was "The Dumb."
Oct 16, 2009 at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The One" has promised $250.00 not to 'soften the blow' but to continue to buy votes with taxpayer money.
Oct 16, 2009 at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Social Security was never intended to be a person's sole income for retirement. The Social Security adminstration has been telling people for years that Social Security was only intended to replace about 43% of a persons working income. If you didn't save while you were working, you're gonna have a problem. People say "I didn't make enough to save anything." Yet they buy cigaretts, beer, ect. and spend foolish. If you are not making enough to live the way you want, then get a better job or cut back on frivilous spending. It's not rocket science.
Oct 16, 2009 at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
"But what can I say? I'm only a little ant."
No, you're a little grasshopper.
http://www.dltk-teach.com/fables/grassho...
Oct 16, 2009 at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry, all that money is was reserved for bank bail-outs and big-time CEOs. Just look what it's done for the economy! And have your forgotten the romantic and charming $10 mil. Ruether's (Wrong-) Way drive to right up to Janesville's own abandoned GM plant!
You seniors would only waste that money on food, toothpaste, support hose, and other mundane essentials anyway. Might we interest you in a nice Death Panel?
Perhaps it's time that these retirees considered supplementing their diets with what the French call "Le Chat Noir" (free-range and stir-fried, with a side of Crudités, of course!).
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.