Tweet
The Senate voted against a Bernie Sanders sponsored bill to provide $250 payouts to the elderly, the disabled and veterans. Sanders sponsored the measure because Social Security checks to these groups will stay flat this year; the bill would have provided a small measure of relief to 57 million Americans, many of whom live at or near the poverty level.
Reuters reports that:
A measure to give some 57 million elderly people, veterans and persons with disabilities a $250 check was rejected by the Senate on Wednesday…
President Barack Obama has called for Congress to approve the payments to make up for their benefits not increasing this year, but the Senate defeated it 50 to 47.
The payments would have added $13 billion to a $108 billion job-creation package pending in the Senate.
…
Social Security payments for the elderly and disabled will stay flat this year for the first time since 1975 because they are tied to consumer prices, which decreased amid the worst economic recession in 70 years.
The same article quotes the bill’s disappointed sponsor, Sen. Bernie Sanders as saying:
It is wrong to turn our backs on seniors in this moment of economic difficulty," said Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who sponsored the amendment.
But Republican Senator Judd Gregg pointed out that the bill would defeat the purpose of indexing Social Security payments to inflation.
"The law says it shouldn’t be given," Gregg said.
At least 10 Democrats [Diarist's note: 12 by my count, see below]agreed with Gregg and joined 40 Republicans to defeat the proposal.
That’s the same Judd Gregg who voted against Obama’s stimulus measure and whom Obama once was pushing to be his Commerce Secretary.
Sadly, a number of liberal/moderate Democrats voted against relief to the seniors including:
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin);
Bennett (D-Colorado);
Feinstein (D-California);
Levin (D-Michigan);
Udall (D-Colorado);
Other Democrats voting against the bill:
Bayh (Indiana);
Carper (Delaware);
Landrieu (LA);
McCaskill (MO);
Nelson (NE);
Shaheen (NH);
Warner (VA);
So by my count, complied from lists from the Senate, 12 Democrats voted against this measure designed to help the elderly.
It seems that many Democrats haven’t figured out yet that the elderly have the highest turnout percentages of any voting group, that they have tended to vote in high numbers for Democrats [which is the party that gave them Social Security], and that this is going to piss off a huge group of their base support. It’s likely that these average Americans will recall the trillions given in bailouts to big banks and Wall Street and the hundreds of billions voted on by the same Senators for defense appropriations without a question being raised, while their $250 checks (yes, that is TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS and ZERO CENTS) were denied them with the aid and assistance of 12 Democrats. Many of these elderly Americans will be asking and thinking:
What’s the difference between these two groups of politicians, the Republicans and the Democrats? They both give money to the same groups and it ain’t us.
Methinks the Democratic party essentially committed suicide with this vote.
Of course, the Liebercreature also voted against the elderly and disabled.
Snowe (Maine) was the only Republican senator who voted for the Sanders bill.
Especially disappointing was Russ Feingold’s position on this. Most of the readers of my diaries probably know I’m a big fan of Feingold. He’s up for reelection and maybe he thought it important to be a hawk on the deficit. But I doubt this will go over well with senior citizens in Wisconsin.
In fact, Feingold had just a few days earlier, on Friday, February 26th, held one of his famous "listening sessions" with his Wisconsin constituents in the tiny town of Park Falls, Wisconsin, where he answered questions from an estimated 30 voters. According to a local newspaper/website account, several of the comments came from disappointed seniors and Feingold attempted to mollify them with words and promises that seem to be quite different from his vote:
The next speaker was one of several senior citizens who were concerned because the Social Security Administration had deemed that there would be no increase in benefits because there had not been any inflation during the year 2009.
Some seniors noted that they had gotten a 5.8% increase the year before, but never had they gotten zero.
Feingold agreed that the lack of an increase for those on social security just doesn’t reflect reality.
“I think this is very unfortunate,” he said. “This does not really indicate what people’s costs are and I would like to put this in a bill which would review this very thing.”
Feingold said he did not want to debate this in Congress “because then nothing will ever get done; we need to move faster than that.”
Several seniors noted that the cost of eggs, milk and almost all other staples have gone up and they couldn’t imagine that there had been no inflation in 2009.
…Geraldine Schmidt said that because her husband passed away, she has lost his social security benefits — even though he paid into the program for all of his life.
“So, now I discover that I am living on the poverty level and this year with no increase in the COLA (cost of living adjustment) what do I do? I am really sure that the cost of bread and butter has gone up so how can they say those on social security should not get any increase at all. The COLA helps this program work and I don’t know why they want to destroy that.”
Feingold said that he hopes a Social Security fix will be coming in a broader bill.
Perhaps the good Senator will join us here to set the record straight and explain his vote?
Here is more official information from the Senate on this:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress – 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive Sec. 403(a) of S.Con.Res. 13, 111th Congress, re: Sanders Amdt. No. 3353 As Modified )
Vote Number: 36 Vote Date: March 3, 2010, 06:28 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3353 to S.Amdt. 3336 to H.R. 4213 (Tax Extenders Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To provide an emergency benefit of $250 to seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities in 2010 to compensate for the lack of cost-of-living adjustment for such year, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 47
NAYs 50
Not Voting 3
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home StateAlphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Not Voting
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Not Voting
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Not Voting
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
LeMieux (R-FL), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (D-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
I’m hoping that if Obama really supports this, as he claims, he and the Democratic Party will try to do it another way. That could be done, for instance, by modifying the way the cost of living is derived for the formula which in turn affects social security benefits. Like the citizens’ expressions in Wisconsin, I find it hard to believe there was zero inflation this past year (but I don’t claim to be an economist either, so help me out if you can). Another way that a similar result could be reached is to raised the minimum payout threshold to a higher level for all Social Security recipients. We should also be looking at INCREASING the level that the Social Security tax goes to (I think it stops now around $90,000 in income). That would provide for possibilities of more minimum payments to recipients and also stabilize the system over the long haul.
In the meantime, shame on the 12 Democrats who voted with a virtually united Republican party. If we cannot provide a little help to our old people, our disabled, and our veterans, who can we help? I guess the answer is big banks.
The bill would have cost only $13 billion, a trifle of what Wall St. received from most of the same Senators, and most of the money would have helped to stimulate the sluggish economy because it would have been spent, most probably, on food and other necessities. A double shame to the liberal/moderate Democrats who abandoned average Americans, many of them in a time of need.
15 Comments
As I am living on social security and will not get the $250: the COLA did not occur because losses in areas such as housing offset rises in medical costs and the like. Also, food costs in general are down, but with all things it takes being selective about choices. While I will not be upset at a failure to give all seniors a small and really insignificant amount, I do prefer that that act be balanced by action to regulate the financial institutions that have decimated seniors’ investments.
N.B.; If the lady cited at Feingold’s town meeting has lost her husband’s social security benefits, she had not been married to him for ten years at the time of his death.
Please give me examples of food choices that are down and what choices you make to keep your food bill down. Perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems to me that food is very expensive these days. Add to that the cost of essentials like toilet paper and other products, and it seems to me that our food bill is higher every week compared to the last few years and even months.
Perhaps you aren’t upset, but many seniors wouldn’t consider $250 insignificant. I guess I just don’t see how anyone could take this in stride. It’s horrible when even Democrats vote against a $250 one-time payment for Senior citizens. Maybe they’re preparing seniors for the time they’re going to cut their Social Security checks.
“Please give me examples of food choices that are down and what choices you make to keep your food bill down.”
Since you ask, at my local stores, there are specials such as: Albertson’s dollar specials on products, that include flour, spices and peanut butter; Kroger’s in store specials, freebies and coupons for discounts at their website, whole chickens for $.88/lb; SavMor’s specials that this week have ground turkey for $1/lb. I don’t go to any others. I also recommend the Dollar Store groups for non perishables and snack foods.
I don’t get it at all. I am reordering the list. The top being who I am most disappointed in:
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin);
Levin (D-Michigan);
McCaskill (D-Missouri);
Bennett (D-Colorado);
Udall (D-Colorado);
The rest … mehh!!:
Feinstein (D-California);
Bayh (Indiana);
Carper (Delaware);
Landrieu (LA);
Nelson (NE);
Shaheen (NH);
Warner (VA)
I am surprised about Bennet. Why give your primary challenger something so easy to bash you with?
Don’t be surprised about Levin(D-Michigan). This guy has been a sinecure for a while now. He even voted against his own amendment, The Drug Re-Importation Bill. He was an avid sponsor of this bill several years ago, but when there came a time it might actually pass, he voted against it. His lame excuse? He was afraid the HCR wouldn’t pass if it was added. I’ve called this man and written him numerous times about a variety of issues. He’s not very helpful and his staff just parrots the talking points. Really, all these lifers need to go.
Democrats get to Washington and turn into Republicans (or maybe they were all along). Thank you for publishing the list. They all assume we will vote for them and support them because the Republicans are worse.
I have sent e-mails to my sister, my daughter and friends who all live in Michael Bennett’s district informing them of his vote against senior citizens and the disabled. It hasn’t been that long ago that I forwarded fundraising requests to them from MoveOn, Democracy for America, the Progressive Action Committee, and ActBlue. I have asked each to call him and to withdraw their support. I also contacted the organizations above to tell them that I cannot afford to donate to them or to those they recommend as long as they support candidates who dump on the elderly and disabled.
Someone on Facebook please forward this article to AARP!
Good points about Bennett. A really, really bonehead move by him and his primary opponent SHOULD use his vote against him!
“Perhaps the good Senator will join us here to set the record straight and explain his vote?”—-I called Feinstein’s office in D.C. and the person who answered could not tell me why she voted against this.
Asked for my views and I told her that Feinstein’s vote sucked.
I meant Russ Feingold as “the good sensator” because he usually is. But he also passed the ball on the Patriot Act recently because he allowed a voice vote. Had Feingold done what Sen. Bunning did, he could have held up the vote until the onerous provisions of the Patriot Act expired. Instead, he did nothing.
Great post, fflambeau. Recommended.
PLUS – At least here in WV, Utilities (gas, Electric) have each increased 120% since one year ago!
And that’s with “level billing,” and NO change in usage.
For you math-obsessed that’s close to $1000/year increase coming out of a total income for two of less than $10K
- an INCREASE in REAL WORLD C.O.L. of 10% of gross income.
(No assets, no investments, no savings-bought small house outright, and no debt, TBTG.)
Remember – “stimulus,” (& “jobs,jobs,jobs;”) is intended economically, to RAISE DEMAND – which RAISES PRICES.
That hurts those on a terminally fixed income -and usually at or below FPL – THE MOST.
Obama endorsed the measure (according to Reuters). Then more than 20% of Democratic senators defied him, knowing there will be no consequences.
Why is $250 times 57 million not $14 billion?
12 Dem senators were intimidated by Jim Bunning’s heroism. It’s easier to vote against this measure than to explain why government (deficit) spending during a recession is good and/or to distinguish between short-term deficits and structural deficits.
Good point about the math, Johnfalstaff. Maybe it is not really 57 million but rounded off? Otherwise, you’re absolutely spot on.
Maybe I can tell you how much that check would really have meant.
I’m 63 and on Social Security. $614 a month. This qualifies me for $106 food stamps. My rent is subsidized, $104 a month in a senior’s building.
The rest, the $510 after rent goes for utilities, which in the winter can be around $300. After that, there are the groceries that the food stamps don’t pay for. After that, there’s almost nothing. I have no medical insurance and I’m too young for Medicare. Illinois doesn’t allow people without children or under 64 to be on Medicaid, so any health expenses come out of that huge amount I have left. Which is why I don’t go to the doctor much – it’s $70 a pop.
I knew when I retired early, because I pretty much had to, that I wouldn’t get much money and I don’t complain about it that much. After all, it keeps me off the streets.
I live in a small town of 3300 people. There’s one grocery store, and one Dollar Store. The closest Walmart is 35 miles. There’s no large chain drug store.
When I go to buy my groceries every month, what I get does not cover the bottom of the cart. I used to be the kind of person who never bought generic stuff – now I do. I used to be the kind of person who bought toilet paper, paper towels, paper napkins and Kleenex every month. Now I hold a lottery to see which two win. I count out what meals I can fix over the month and figure how many cans of green beans, corn, and peas will get me through it.
I was stunned when we didn’t get the COLA increase since I’ve seen the amount of groceries I can get for $106 a month dwindle EACH month. But the President pretty much promised that additional $250 and I was counting on it and I know I’m not the only one. I had so many different ways to use it – a big payment to the doctor, getting my electric bill completely paid off, maybe a new coat.
I have the feeling that because they managed to get the Unemployment past Bunning, they felt guilty somehow, and that’s why they didn’t pass the Stimulus payment. No big deal.
I know I’m on the low end of the SS payments – when I was working I never made over $12,000 a year so I never expected Social Security to be that much.
But don’t try to tell me that grocery prices haven’t gone up because I know they have. I have receipts in my purse that show ten cent and 25 cent increases on silly little things like canned vegetables or frozen potatoes or a loaf of rye bread that SHOW me prices went up.
I forget which senator I read that said something like “it isn’t that much,” or something along those lines. Well, he probably has ties that cost $250 and has no clue how much that money would have meant.
I don’t remember which town hall meeting it was, maybe two months or so ago, where a woman asked the president about the COLA not happening and he jumped in with the fact that the $250 was a done deal. I thought it was til I started searching the net for it and discovered that it was only PROPOSED.
The news doesn’t even find it important enough to cover – I didn’t know they were GOING to vote on it until I saw a crawl on MSNBC that it had failed and I have to tell you, it was quite a shock.
I’m not really here to complain – just to point out that unless you’re ON Social Security and have to EXIST, you don’t really know how hard it can be and exactly how much $250 can be.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was the one who sponsored the amendment and I heard him this afternoon on the Thom Hartmann show. He was disappointed that his amendment did not pass and further explained the problem with using COLA for seniors. The COLA used by social security is based on the cost of living across the entire consumer price index. This index includes such things as TV’s and computers, the price for which both went down for 2010. Senator Sanders feels that for seniors this is an unfair index to use as consumer costs to seniors generally relate more to the price of food, insurance, prescriptions, heating oil, etc as there are not many seniors in the market for computers, etc. All the typical costs of things which seniors purchase increased significantly, so Senator Sanders feels that there should be a specially designed cost of living based on things which seniors typically purchase used to calculate the annual COLA. Why not go to Bernie’s web site and thank him for his efforts and encourage him to try to get the social security COLA properly adjusted?