Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts

Friday, January 15, 2010

Democrats Threaten: Senate Can Pass Health With 51 Votes

By Jonathan D. Salant

Even if Democrats lose the special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator Tuesday, Congress may still pass health-care overhaul through a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.

That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.

"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said.

"Getting health-care reform passed is important," Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s "Political Capital with Al Hunt," airing this weekend. "Reconciliation is an option."

Should Democrats take that route, the legislation would have to be scaled back because of Senate rules.

He also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.

Van Hollen said Republican predictions that the political climate had changed so much that they can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House was "pure hallucination."

‘Into the Ditch’

"Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?" Van Hollen said. "For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner."

He said Democrats expect to see their majority shrink this year because the party that occupies the White House traditionally loses congressional seats in the first midterm election.

At the end of a week dominated by images of death and destruction after the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, Van Hollen said lawmakers likely will approve whatever relief money the president requests. Obama has already asked for $100 million.

"We want to help people who need relief immediately, and so to that extent I support it," Van Hollen said this afternoon.

Separately, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that Haitian nationals now in the U.S. will be allowed to stay for an additional 18 months because of the quake devastation.

Gasoline Tax

On other domestic issues, Van Hollen said Congress won’t raise the gasoline tax this year to fund a new long-term construction program for roads and mass transit. The current six-year, $286.5 billion transportation legislation is expiring.

Jobs legislation passed by the House includes $50 billion for construction projects, Van Hollen said. Longer-term legislation with a gas-tax increase will require "some kind of bipartisan consensus before you more forward," he said.

On the decision to require Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to testify before the House Financial Services Committee, Van Hollen said that while he didn’t believe Geithner was in political danger, it was appropriate for him to come before Congress.

AIG Payments

Lawmakers want to know why the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which Geithner formerly led, agreed to payments of 100 cents on the dollar to companies that held American International Group Inc. credit-default swaps tied to subprime mortgages.

Van Hollen said the New York Fed’s decision was wrong and the U.S. needed to "understand how that decision was made, because that kind of decision should not be made in the future."

As Democratic congressional leaders worked with the White House to meld House and Senate versions of the health-care overhaul legislation, Van Hollen said there was no deadline for completing the measure.

"Our more important goal is to make sure we get it right," he said.

While polls show opposition to the legislation -- a Quinnipiac University survey found 58 percent of Americans opposing the way Obama was handling the issue -- Van Hollen said the individual components were popular and most people will support the measure once it clears Congress.

"It’s been subject to a lot of demagoguery, a lot of misinformation," Van Hollen said. Once the measure is finished, "people will see the benefits."

Read more >>

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Republican Health Care Plan Offers Alternatives To Nationalized Health Insurance

The Republican Leadership in the House of Representatives is offering alternative legislation to H.R. 3962, Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s 1,990 page monstrosity that nationalizes health care, funds abortion and creates 111 new federal bureaucracies.

The Republican bill is 219 pages long. Read the Republican health care bill here: Republican substitute

The Republicans have issued the following summary of their legislation. We are reprinting the summary below:

Republicans’ Common-Sense Reforms Will LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS

Americans want a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s costly, 1,990-page government takeover of our nation’s health care system. Republicans’ alternative solution focuses on lowering health care premiums for families and small businesses, increasing access to affordable, high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles – without adding to the crushing debt Washington has  placed on our children and grandchildren. Following are the key elements of Republicans’ alternative plan:

  • Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.

  • Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with pre­existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high- risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.

  • Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.

  • Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy or instituting annual of lifetime spending caps. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.

  • Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.

  • Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.

  • Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.

  • Codifying the Hyde Amendment. The GOP plan explicitly prohibits all federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion.

  • Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.

  • Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums.

  • Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.

Scorecard: Speaker Pelosi’s Government Takeover vs. GOP Common-Sense Solutions

 

Speaker Pelosi’s Bill

GOP Alternative

Job Losses

Up to 5.5 million

0

Medicare Cuts

$500 billion

0

Tax Increases

$729.5 billion

0

TAKE ACTION:

  1. Urge your Representative to vote YES on the Stupak/Pitts amendment and NO on the passage of PelosiCare, ObamaCare Or HarryCare in the Senate. No legislation must be passed that creates a socialized health care system in America.
  2. Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121 and ask for your Representative’s office.
  3. Please forward this to ten friends!
  4. SUPPORT TVC’S IMPORTANT WORK!

Additional Resources:
Stop The Harry-Kari Of Our Health Care System
Attend A Rally Against ObamaCare (Government-Run Health Care)
Republicans Decloak Health Care Plan
30-46 Million Uninsured? No!

Read more >>

PelosiCare Vote Looms This Weekend!

By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

Democrat leaders in the House are rushing through a vote on Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s 1,990-page health care bill this Saturday. (Pelosi’s bill nationalizes health care and creates 111 new federal bureaucracies!)

Pelosi dropped her bill (H.R. 3962) just last week and expects legislators to have read, absorbed and understood the 1,990 pages of legalese in it.

Pro-Life legislators have zeroed in on sections in the bill that will be used to mandate abortion coverage as part of a government-run health care program.

Pelosi’s bill currently authorizes federal funding for abortion in the public option and subsidies for private insurance that includes abortion through affordability credits.


TAKE ACTION:

  1. Urge your Representative to vote YES on the Stupak/Pitts amendment and NO on the passage of PelosiCare, ObamaCare Or HarryCare in the Senate. No legislation must be passed that creates a socialized health care system in America.
  2. Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121 and ask for your Representative’s office.
  3. Please forward this to ten friends!
  4. SUPPORT TVC’S IMPORTANT WORK!

Democrat Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) is offering an amendment that will still permit abortion in the government-run program but would force providers to contract out administrative functions related to paying for elective abortions.

TVC Executive Andrea Lafferty delivered a box of petitions against socialized health care to Ellsworth's office on November 4 -- just days before the vote on Pelosi's plan to nationalize health care.

TVC Executive Andrea Lafferty delivered a box of petitions against socialized health care to Ellsworth's office on November 4 -- just days before the vote on Pelosi's plan to nationalize health care.

As pro-life New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith has stated: “Today we see yet another phony amendment designed to subsidize and expand the abortion industry cloaked in deceptive language. The new language makes clear that abortion will be included in the public option. Under the new arrangement, instead of an HHS employee issuing blood money checks for elective abortions, HHS will pay a contractor to issue checks for abortion on demand. It is a distinction without a difference. The public should not be fooled nor should any pro-life Democrat.”

According to Smith, the Ellsworth amendment “… amounts to the federal government taking out a ‘contract’ on the unborn. For the first time ever an elaborate government program will be created to pay contractors to pay abortionists for the dismemberment, chemical poisoning, and in utero starvation of innocent unborn children.”

Smith and other pro-life Members of Congress are pushing for a vote on the bipartisan Stupak/Pitts amendment that will permanently prohibit funding for abortions and plans that include abortion coverage.

TVC supports the Stupak/Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, but still opposes passage of PelosiCare or any other liberal plan to nationalize our health care system.

TAKE ACTION:

  1. Urge your Representative to vote YES on the Stupak/Pitts amendment and NO on the passage of PelosiCare, ObamaCare Or HarryCare in the Senate. No legislation must be passed that creates a socialized health care system in America.
  2. Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121 and ask for your Representative’s office.
  3. Please forward this to ten friends!
  4. SUPPORT TVC’S IMPORTANT WORK!


Additional Resources:
Stop The Harry-Kari Of Our Health Care System
Attend A Rally Against ObamaCare (Government-Run Health Care)
Republicans Decloak Health Care Plan
30-46 Million Uninsured? No!

Read more >>

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Democrats Dying to Kill Us With Obama-Care

By Don Feder

The left has always wanted to exercise absolute control over the lives of the American people – mind you, for our own good.

It wants to control what we think, through public education, Hollywood and its trained-poodle news media. It wants to dispose of our property, through confiscatory taxation. It wants to raise our children, run our businesses, and plan our retirement.

But now, with Obama-care, it’s reaching for the gold ring – the power to decide who lives and dies, the power to play God.

If you’re elderly and ailing, if you’re young and disabled, if you require special treatment, if it deems your quality of life low or your social utility wanting, the left is dying to kill you. If Congress and this administration have their way, it will have that power very soon.

I’m talking about the rationing of medical services – the inevitable consequence of Obama-care. It’s not just that the politicians will be driven to it. If our health care system is nationalized, they will welcome it.

I’m not going to raise the specter of death panels, or speak to you about “comparative effectiveness,” or Section 1232 of the House health-care bill, which requires “end-of-life counseling” for Medicare patients every five years – and more often if they’re terminally ill.

I will not describe how socialized medicine has worked in the United Kingdom or Canada. In Britain, beyond a certain age, if you need a hip-replacement or cataract surgery – tough. The Canadians already have what Obama wants for America. So why are they coming here for life-saving operations? Why aren’t we going there?

No one knows the contours of the final abomination the House and Senate will vote on – perhaps in a matter of days. And the Democrats won’t let us see it in advance.

You know what? It doesn’t matter. If you want to see the shape of things to come, listen to the voices emanating from the shriveled heart of the Party of Plunder.

The Democrat Party increasingly resembles a wholly-owned subsidiary of billionaire George Soros, who funneled $25 million into its coffers in the 2003/2004 election cycle alone.

In a 1994 speech, America’s most prominent proponent of doctor-assisted suicide rhetorically asked: “Can we really afford to care for the dying properly? The number of people dying in the United States currently stands at 2.2 million annually. Increases in cancer and AIDS and the aging of the Baby-Boomers will cause this figure to climb faster than the population… (But) aggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient’s wishes, are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.” Well, beat me with a euphemism!

What’s “proper care for the dying”? Certainly, nothing that costs much – as far as the architects of Obama-care are concerned. Not a ventilator, not a feeding tube, not CPR – just enough drugs to keep them quiet.

Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is health-policy advisor to the Office of Budget and Management, and brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, who once disclosed, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Dr. Emmanuel says that in health-care reform (so-called), “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control for show and public relations than for true change.” At last, an honest Democrat.

The good doctor believes medical care should not be wasted on those who are “irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” As an example, he cites patients with dementia. Well, they could always run for Congress in Massachusetts.

What about patients with terminal cancer or the 66-year-old who’s suffered a massive stroke or a severe heart-attack? On the other end of the life spectrum, what about severely disabled children or those with Downs syndrome? Will they be judged incapable of becoming “participating citizens” and assigned to an institution, there to receive minimal care till they die?

By the way, among the things Dr. Emanuel cites as medical luxuries are private rooms in hospitals, physicians offices “conveniently located” with nearby parking, and “attractive waiting rooms.” What about Band-Aids, aspirin and eye-drops?

Then there’s Robert Reich, Clinton’s Labor Secretary. In a 2007 speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Reich told his audience he would speak to them as if he was an honest candidate who “did not care about becoming president.”

Regarding health care reform, his message would be, “particularly to you young, healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more. And by the way, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life…It’s too expensive… so we’re going to let you die.” Here’s a really honest Democrat.

Reich continued: “Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government… to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents.” How about as long as your parents – or grandparents?

And now for a word – or two – from a really, really honest Democrat.

Writing in The Huffington Post (The Daily Worker was less dogmatic), on September 24, former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, a senior statesman of the Democratic Party, patiently explained to dolts like you and me: “No modern society can afford to give each of its citizens all the health care that is ‘beneficial.’ The health care system can no more afford to do everything ‘beneficial’ for every patient than the education system (BTW, another government-run disaster) can do everything ‘beneficial’ for every student.... We are delivering and the public is expecting more medicine than we can possibly afford to maintain.”

We can’t afford to give citizens? We are delivering more medicine than we can possibly afford? We’re not going to give you? Reserved for “participating citizens”?

We used to live in a country called “America.” It was a place where politicians and bureaucrats didn’t tell us what we could and couldn’t have when it came to medical care. If we could afford it, we paid for it. If we couldn’t, there was always welfare or charity to help out.

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, just down the road in Concord, “their flags to April’s breeze unfurled,” once “the embattled farmers stood: And fired the shot heard round the world.” If they were alive today, you can probably guess where they’d be pointing their muskets.

In 1984, Lamm gave an unexpurgated version of his Huffington Post column, when he told the Colorado Health Lawyers Association: “Like leaves falling off a tree forming the humus in which other plants can grow, we’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts, so that our kids can build a better life” – or, in the words of another Democratic theorist, let them die and “decrease the surplus population” I think Obama has found his first health insurance czar.

Here’s the bottom-line of Obama-care. Take an 85-year-old man who fought for his country in World War II or Korea, who paid taxes and obeyed the law all of his life, who built a home and raised children who in turn grew up to become productive citizens, and who started a business that eventually employed dozens or even thousands of people.

He doesn’t get end-of-life treatment, so those resources can be redirected to illegal aliens and taxpayer-funded abortion. He’s given a few drugs to die on quickly and quietly, so Nancy Pelosi can have her Botox treatments and Rosie O’Donnell will get liposuction.

If you’re a liberal (excuse me, a “progressive”) rationing is the answer to your prayers. Not only will it save money on end-of-life care by letting the elderly die quickly, it will also avert a coming demographic crisis for Social Security and Medicare, with the worker/beneficiary ratio constantly shrinking and the proverbial trust fund a myth.

Do you think that those who are pushing the Freedom of Choice Act – who want to eliminate any restrains on abortion – and who let Terri Schiavo die of dehydration – do you think they will really have any qualms about pulling the plug on Granny?

What then must we do? What is our assignment?

You who have gathered here today are the Minutemen. You are the soldiers of the Continental Army leaving bloody footprints in the snow during Washington’s retreat across New Jersey in December of 1776. You are the 5th Corps of the 20th Maine Infantry charging the Confederate lines at Gettysburg. You are the Doughboys of the Argonne. You are the boys of Easy Company dropping behind enemy lines on D-Day.

But what can we do, you ask? The party of death controls the White House, has super-majorities in Congress and owns the media (news and entertainment).

I’ll tell you what you can do: You can take to heart the words of Winston Churchill to the students of Harrow School in 1941: “Never give in – never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty… . Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

And you can draw strength from the last stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner: “Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’ And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free (Do you hear that, Mr. Obama, ‘the land of the free’?) and the home of the brave!”

Thank you and God bless you.

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.

Read more >>

Taxpayers’ $ 13 Billion in $ 250 Social-Security Payments – The Politics of Accelerating Insolvency

By Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.

President Barack Hussein Obama has proposed that the 111th Congress authorize a supposedly one-time $ 250.00 payment to all older folks - the “in” word is seniors - who draw Social Security. The payment would be made in 2010. By sheer coincidence, in 2010 one-third of United States Senate and all House of Representatives seats will be up for election. By more coincidence, most pundits are predicting various measures of Republican gains.

Enough sarcasm. Three additional realities are applicable. They are so simple that, as this writer, one need not be an economist to understand them. The first is that the payment would cost $ 13 billion, at a time when we the taxpayers - and worse, our children and grandchildren - are burdened by the largest national debt in history. The second reality is that pursuant to existing law Social Security automatically increases its benefits, commonly termed a cost-of-living adjustment, when inflation strikes but for 2010 there would be no such increase because there has been no 2009 inflation.

THE WASHINGTON POST is hardly a conservative newspaper but often by print-media criteria is quite detailed and occasionally very balanced. On October 18, 2009 it published a brief story about comments of eight people: the Chief Economist at the Concord Coalition; a Democratic pollster and writer; an Urban Institute Fellow who was Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) Director 1983 - 1987; the Chief Economist of Moody’s Economy.com; House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH); former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA); the 2003 - 2005 CBO Director, later an economic advisor to the 2008 McCain Presidential Campaign; and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV).

The Democratic pollster and author candidly noted the political value to the President of the “relatively inexpensive [sic] $ 13 billion proposal . . .” The Moody’s economist favored the proposal, somewhat characterizing it as the equivalent of the lesser of two evils (to use my phrase). Senator Reid, as would be expected, supported the proposal and characterized potential opposition as “partisan bickering . . .” The other five objected.

Meanwhile, as our population ages and benefits increase with inflation, the third, and dangerously underlying, reality continues to be that Social Security is on the road to disaster. The attached commentaries delve into some detail and history: July 9 and April 21, 2009; December 16, 2004. Who seriously, nonpolitically and convincingly could contend that a single-shot election-year $ 13 billion aggregate of $ 250.00 payments would be other than a further step to accelerate Social-Security insolvency?

Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.

Read more >>

Monday, October 19, 2009

How Much Obamacare Costs the Average Family - (That Means YOU!)

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Whether or not you now have health insurance, Obama’s health care bill will cost you dearly.

If you don’t have insurance, you will be required to buy it. The legislation specifies how much you will have to pay for the coverage before any subsidy kicks in. All during the campaign, Obama kept speaking about affordable coverage. Now it appears that his definition of “affordable” might be a bit elastic.

If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama’s health care bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income -- about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month -- to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy.

Even those making less will have to reach deep into their meager resources to satisfy Obama’s statutory requirement. Families scraping by on only $44,0000 a year will have to pay 7 percent of their income (about $3,000) on insurance. Even those making just $33,000 will have to ante up 4.5 percent of their income (about $1,500) for health insurance. The required payments reach so far down the scale that those who are living at the federal poverty level of $22,000 will have to shell out 2 percent of their totally inadequate incomes ($440) for insurance.

That Obama is charging premiums to those living at or on the border of poverty is absolutely incredible! And this from a candidate who pledged that he would not tax the middle class!

If you have insurance, you will get hit by his proposed 40 percent tax on insurance premiums.

When the tax -- and the legislation -- takes effect in 2013, all families making about $120,000 or more in combined household income (14 percent of all families or one in seven) will have to pay the tax.

By the next year, 2014, the tax will hit every family making more than $100,000 (about 18 percent of all families or one in six).

By 2019, 10 years hence, the tax will reach down to affect every family making more than $75,000 a year (31 percent of families or one in three).

The tax will take 40 percent of all premiums above $21,000.

So if you don’t have insurance, you will be socked with a mandate to buy coverage and pay a hefty proportion of your income to do it; and if you have insurance, you will be hit with an excise tax on the coverage.

(In theory, it is the insurance companies that have to pay the tax, but the Senate Finance Committee “assumes” that they will pass the tax along to their policyholders).

These costs make a mockery of Obama’s oft-repeated pledge to avoid any tax increase that would impact those making under $250,000 a year. He finances about half of his health care plan on the backs of the elderly by cutting Medicare and inducing scarcity and the other half by premium taxes and insurance purchasing mandates on the middle and lower middle class.

Read more >>

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

OBAMA SAYS: ONE TIME $250 BONUS FOR SENIORS

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.

It would mark the first year without an increase in Social Security payments since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.

"Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession," Obama said in a statement. "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."

Obama's proposal is similar to several bills in Congress. The $250 payments would also go to those receiving veterans benefits, disability benefits, railroad retirees and retired public employees who don't receive Social Security. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified for more.

The White House put the cost at $13 billion. Obama said he would not allow the payments to come out of the Social Security trust funds, further eroding the finances of the retirement program. Social Security already is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in each of the next two years.

However, Obama did not offer any alternatives to finance the payments. A senior administration official said Obama was open to borrowing the money, increasing the federal budget deficit. The official, who requested anonymity, was not authorized to speak on the record.

Obama also announced Wednesday that the IRS would soon issue tax guidance preventing reductions in contribution limits for certain retirement funds, including 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts. There has been concern among some in the financial industry that federal law could require the limits to be reduced because inflation will be negative this year.

The $250 payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Several key members of Congress have said they are open to providing relief to seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security payments.

"We're looking at a way to address it," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Social Security. "I'm not sure what the exact answer is yet, but we're looking at ways to address that."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he supports the $250 payments, as did Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security in the House.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has introduced a bill calling for similar payments.

"I think that the Obama administration and many members of Congress understand that we simply can't turn our backs on senior citizens," Sanders said.

Other lawmakers said seniors shouldn't get the extra payments because the formula doesn't call for it.

"I think it would be inappropriate," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living."

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest increase since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

Inflation has been negative this year largely because energy prices have fallen. Gasoline prices have dropped 30 percent over the past year while overall energy costs have dropped 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Social Security payments, however, cannot go down. The average monthly Social Security payment for retirees is $1,160.

Advocacy groups said the payment will be welcomed by seniors hit hard by falling home values and shrinking investment portfolios.

"The likelihood of losing an average annual COLA increase of about $200 to $300 in 2010 may sound like no big deal to some, but for millions of seniors who've already seen a third of their Social Security eaten up by health care costs, this proposed COLA relief could truly make the difference" said Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic member of Congress from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

AARP CEO A. Barry Rand said, "For nearly 35 years, millions of Americans have counted on an annual increase in their monthly Social Security checks to make ends meet."

Read more >>