Tag Archives: Social Security

Musk, Trump testing our faith

Elon Musk and his puppet, Donald Trump, are testing my faith in the U.S. Constitution’s ability to hold up to the full frontal assault these two nimrods are launching.

Yes, my faith is bending, but I believe — at least I hope — it is far from breaking.

Trump campaigned for the presidency vowing to leave veterans benefits and Social Security alone. He said he wouldn’t cut either program. Then he hauls Elon Musk aboard the clown car and Musk — the richest man on Earth — starts yammering about cuts in vets’ programs and calls Social Security a “ponzi scheme.”

OK, the disph** doesn’t know a ponzi scheme if it bit him in the ass. Social Security is a compact this government made in 1935 with elderly Americans to provide them with assistance to live in their retirement years.

We have paid into the system and as we seek to enjoy retirement from a lifetime of working hard, we are getting some of it back. What does Elon Musk know about any of that? Not a damn thing!

As for veterans benefits, for Donald J. Trump — the draft dodger in chief — to say a word about cutting benefits for those of us who did serve our country is merely adding unconscionable insult to unforgiveable injury.

Some of us are old enough to remember a time when Democratic leaders in Congress sought to monkey around with elderly benefits. In the 1980s, House Speaker Tip O’Neill and senior U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois got caught making untoward comments about Social Security. The outcry from the masses was so vigorous that they both backed down.

Musk and Trump should face an equal rage-filled response if they try to monkey around with old folks’ retirement and veterans’ pre-paid benefits.

Feeling vulnerable

I am feeling an odd sense of vulnerability these days we await the second version of Donald Trump’s White House tour.

You see, he’s hired a couple of hot shots and hot heads to “reform” federal government spending. Zillionaire Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been yammering that “everything” is on the table for possible elimination.

You ask, “Everything?” That’s what these two dips**** say. That means, dare I suggest, Social Security.

Why the vulnerability? Because I rely on my Social Security income to enable me to live comfortably in North Texas. I just turned 75 and I am not willing to go back to work to shore up my income. I did that for a lot of years. I paid a lot of money into the SSI fund from which I am now drawing my income.

I am aware that financial advisers tell us we shouldn’t rely on SSI as our primary retirement income source. That’s fine … if you’re filthy rich, which I am not. I do have a retirement fund, but I refuse to spend it all on daily essentials. Therefore, I rely on SSI to buy groceries and help me pay utilities and so forth.

What will the feds do to that income source for me and millions of other old folks? That remains to be seen. I get the heebie-jeebies when I hear Musk and that loudmouth Ramaswamy blather on about the federal programs they plan to eliminate through that Government Efficiency program they head up.

Donald Trump says he won’t touch Social Security. Do you believe him? Hah! Me, neither.

Those clowns had better tread carefully if they start messing with our income stream.

Constituent service comes through

You have heard it said that “there’s a first time for everything.” Well, I experienced something for the first time and I want to offer a good word to my congressman and his staff for helping me resolve an issue important to me.

I recently changed the financial institution that receives my monthly Social Security payment. It was supposed to have arrived early this week; it didn’t. I called the office of U.S. Rep. Keith Self, R-McKinney and asked the young man who took the call if he had “someone there who works exclusively” on Social Security matters. “Yes we do,” he said and then hooked me with up a colleague.

I told the Social Security guru about my issue. I asked for some help. He referred me to a website link to Self’s online info page. I filled it out.

The staffers could not have been more receptive to my concern. They pledged to get right on it. I believe they did,

Oh, but wait. My Social Security benefit arrived overnight at the bank. Problem solved. I just was a bit premature, I suppose, in seeking help from my congressman.

Then I got an email with an attachment that contained a note from Rep. Self. “Dear John,” the noted stated, adding that he was working to resolve the issue. Another staffer called me later in the day and I informed her that my issue is resolved.

I had never called my congressman for help on a matter such as this one. I discovered that at least one member of Congress is serious about tending to constituents’ needs when they arise … and I want to thank him for his staff’s response.

Beware of social media lie: Pelosi didn’t rob SSI fund

Social media can be fun if it isn’t abused. When abuse occurs, it becomes a deadly toxin.

A social media lie has been making the rounds about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and this idiotic notion that she grabbed $2.4 billion from a Social Security fund to pay for the impeachment inquiry under way in the House of Representatives.

It ain’t true. Yet it’s gone viral.

My gut reaction when I first heard of it was: Wait a second; the speaker doesn’t have that kind of authority. The speaker cannot move money around unilaterally.

Fact-checkers have debunked the notion. Pelosi is too smart a politician, too adroit and too shrewd to even consider doing something such as that.

This, therefore, presents a profound example of how social media can be weaponized. Let us take greater care when reading this nonsense.

Factcheck.org lays it out here.

How about we all just settle down and let this process play out?

Promise made … promise broken

Donald Trump made a solemn vow while campaigning for the presidency of the United States of America.

He said he wouldn’t be a typical Republican. He said he would leave Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending alone. He wouldn’t touch them. He would solve the nation’s budgetary woes — as he defined them — without laying a hand on those valuable social programs.

So, what does the president do when he presents his fiscal year 2020 federal budget? He proposes cuts to Medicare by $845 billion, cuts for Medicaid by $1.5 trillion and reduces Social Security spending by $25 billion.

His record-setting budget of $4.75 trillion does add money for the Department of Defense.

Broken promises

My point here is that Donald Trump persuaded many American voters that he would leave these coveted programs alone.

OK, he has officially stuck it in our household’s eye. My wife and I are retired Americans. We draw from our Social Security accounts and we also depend on Medicare to help with our health care needs; I also have Veterans Administration benefits to assist with my health care issues.

Is this the bargain the nation got when it elected this promise-breaker president of the United States?

Socialism is a serious straw man

Donald J. Trump stood before a joint congressional session and received his share of cheers — mostly from Republicans sitting in front of him — during his State of the Union speech.

One applause line deserves a brief comment here. He declared, without an ounce of equivocation, that the United States is never going to become a “socialist nation.”

GOP lawmakers stood and cheered. So did a handful of Democrats.

Why mention this here? Because the president of the United States only revealed his acute command of the obvious.

He was taking a direct shot at one member of the Senate, Vermont independent Bernie Sanders. He also was targeting a handful of House Democrats, too, namely the rookie lawmaker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has become a media superstar while serving for an entire month in the House of Representatives.

Is the president’s declaration actually intended to stave off some hidden stampede toward socialism? He clearly intends with that statement to stoke some kind of made-up fear that there is enough support in Congress to allow for a government takeover of heavy industry. He is breeding panic among those who believe that the United States of America is going to forgo capitalism in favor of socialism.

Let’s catch our breath. There is no way in the world that the United States of America is going to adopt a socialistic economy.

The issues that some congressional progressives can be resolved without converting our economy from one that produces individual wealth to something that distributes wealth evenly among all 300 million-plus Americans.

“Medicare For All” is no more of a socialistic solution than, say, the original Medicare was when it was enacted in 1965. Or when Social Security became law in 1935. Yet lawmakers and, yes, the president insist that the Affordable Care Act — President Obama’s signature domestic policy initiative — marches the nation down the road toward socialism.

There remains a tremendous amount of individual wealth in this country. I happen to believe firmly that individual wealth will continue to flourish likely until the end of time — whenever that occurs! Socialism, as I understand the meaning of the concept, seeks to redistribute wealth through some nefarious government grab of individual assets.

Does anyone seriously believe that is going to happen? Ever?

If you believe it, then you likely have swilled the Kool-Aid dispensed by demagogues who flourish in a climate of fear.

Why not repair ACA instead of repealing it?

Barack H. Obama used to say it all the time: If Republicans have any improvements they want to make to the Affordable Care Act, I am willing to work it with them.

The Democratic president was open to tinkering with the ACA. He said he was keeping an open mind on ways to improve his signature piece of domestic legislation.

Then his time as president expired. His successor, Donald J. Trump, had vowed to “repeal and replace” the ACA starting with Day One of his presidency. He has labeled the ACA a “disaster.”

But the president can’t seem to bring himself to persuade his fellow Republicans in Congress to do as his predecessor has suggested regarding improving the ACA. They have dug in hard in their effort to repeal and replace the ACA. Trump has joined them. They now are left to fighting among themselves over the best way to replace the ACA.

The ACA is not the “disaster” that Trump has asserted about it. The law has provided health insurance for more than 20 million Americans who couldn’t afford it.

I am willing to concede that the ACA isn’t perfect. However, it is the law of the land. Why in the world can’t the GOP pick the law apart, huddle with Democrats, agree on what’s working and then seek to reform the elements of the ACA that aren’t working?

Oh, no. They cannot go there. The intention among the GOP leadership is to throw out every vestige of the ACA because, I’m going to presume, it has President Obama’s imprimatur. The Republican congressional caucus had declared its intention to make Obama “a one-term president,” and the ACA — approved in 2010 — simply had to go.

Tinkering and mending this law doesn’t constitute an unprecedented solution. Congress did as much with Medicare in the 1960s and with Social Security in the 1930s.

They managed — somehow — to improve those other two pieces of landmark legislation.

What about the here and now?

Now, those are ‘town hall meetings’

Town hall meetings usually are love fests, at least that’s what transpires when state legislators convene them in the Texas Panhandle.

State Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, quite often stages these sessions in communities throughout his sprawling West Texas district. As near as I can tell, they are civil, usually friendly and constituents spend a good bit of energy telling Seliger how much they appreciate his service.

Well, town hall meetings in many congressional districts have turned into something quite different in recent days. They have produced shouting matches between members of Congress and their constituents.

At issue? The Affordable Care Act.

Constituents are showing up in droves to tell their congresspeople to leave the ACA alone. Or, if they’re going to repeal it, they’d damn well better have something to replace it … as in immediately, if not sooner!

U.S. Rep. Gus Billirakis, R-Fla., got a snootful from his constituents, who told him they’d better not mess with “Obamacare.” He’s not alone. Someone uttered the term “death panel” during a town hall event and promptly got booed and shouted down.

I haven’t heard about any such encounters in my congressional district, which would be the 13th, covering the Texas Panhandle. Our member of Congress is a fellow named Mac Thornberry, a Clarendon Republican, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, a rancher and a self-proclaimed “recovering lawyer.” He has served in the House for 22 years, making him one of the big dogs of Capitol Hill.

Thornberry hasn’t said much in public — above a whisper — about how he would replace the ACA.

Town hall meetings, as I have long understood them, were meant for constituents to speak their minds freely, telling their elected representatives what they think about issues of the day and how their representatives are handling them. The bad comes with the good. Town hall meetings aren’t usually intended to be amen choruses.

Thus, the real deal has broken out in congressional districts across the land.

It’s beginning to sound as though Congress has just discovered a so-called new “third rail.” It used to be that you didn’t mess with Social Security. These days, with 20 million Americans insured through a new government-sponsored insurance program, the third rail might have switched.

Now it’s the Affordable Care Act … maybe.

Why not just repair Obamacare?

All this talk about repealing the Affordable Care Act seems to ignore a possible alternative that’s been done already with other landmark legislation.

Congressional Republicans have been adamant about getting rid of the ACA. They’ve had six years to find a replacement mechanism to provide health insurance to Americans who cannot afford it otherwise. They have failed. They’ve come up with … nothing!

The alternative to flat-out repeal is to repair the ACA.

Congress enacted Medicare in 1965 to provide medical insurance to elderly Americans. It wasn’t perfect, either. Congress and President Johnson got together to tinker with it, to fine-tune it, to make it better. The same can be said of what Congress and other president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, did with Social Security when they created that program in 1935.

Reasonable minds can come together to make landmark laws better. It’s been done. Why not now?

Well, my theory is that it’s because the ACA has President Obama’s name on it. It’s been called Obamacare chiefly by those who use that term as a pejorative. They don’t like something that carries the name of a president who House and Senate Republicans have opposed since the beginning of his time in the White House.

I get that the ACA isn’t perfect. I understand that premiums have increased, that health insurance companies are bailing out, that consumers are having trouble finding doctors who will treat those covered by insurance provided by the ACA.

Aren’t there reasonable solutions to fix these problems? Can’t the ACA opponents huddle with those in Congress who support the plan to repair the law?

Oh, no! They’ve got to toss the ACA into the trash heap. They want to declare victory by calling it a “monumental failure,” a “disaster,” a “terrible idea.”

Twenty million Americans have health insurance today who didn’t have it before the ACA became law in 2010. Congressional Republicans are quite sure they can repeal the ACA. Finding a replacement is a bit more of a hurdle.

They have precedent, though, for seeking ways to repair what many folks believe is a flawed idea.

Compromise, folks! That’s how you govern effectively. You either have Americans’ interests at heart, or you are thinking only of your own political futures.

Words ‘I am retired’ flowing more easily

retirement.pic_

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

You might not think this is a big deal, but it is to me.

The words “I am retired” are flowing more easily out of my pie hole these days.

I get asked frequently by customers at the auto dealership where I work: “Do you do this full time, part time or what? Are you retired?”

My answer: “Oh I’m retired now.”

Actually, my presence at the auto dealership reveals that I am not yet fully retired. I’m getting there, slowly but inexorably.

I’ll admit to being a bit uncomfortable saying “I am retired” when I first started collecting my Social Security income. My discomfort wasn’t anything that I can identify. I didn’t have pangs in my gut. I didn’t stutter when I said it. I didn’t flinch, wince or grimace at the sound of the words.

It was just a strange set of words coming from me, of all people, a guy who had worked pretty damn hard for nearly 40 years in daily journalism. Then it ended. I was sent out to pasture, along with a number of other, um, more mature fellow practitioners of this noble craft.

I have admitted already that I wasn’t ready for the day I tendered my resignation after being told someone else would be doing the job I had been doing at my last newspaper stop here in Amarillo. Instead of seeking another job at the Globe-News, I decided to quit.

Boom, just like that, my career was over.

The onset of retirement is sounding more comfortable to me these days. I’ve still got a couple of part-time jobs that keep me busy. There’s the Street Toyota auto dealership customer service gig; there’s also my freelance writing gig at KFDA NewsChannel 10.

However, I am feeling more retired these days than not.

What’s more, I am quite comfortable saying it out loud.

Ain’t it cool?