[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Page 24799]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR SENIORS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Next month, the government is going to go to the expense 
of sending out a letter to well over 40 million Social Security 
recipients telling them they are not going to get a cost-of-living 
adjustment, but they didn't experience inflation this year. Now, the 
only problem with that is the way we measure inflation is heavily 
oriented toward nonessential consumer goods of which seniors do not buy 
a lot.
  Seniors have to buy certain essentials; pharmaceuticals, up double 
digits in the last year. Seniors buy health insurance, Medigap policies 
up high single digits in the last year. Seniors have rent, utilities, 
probably also up depending upon where they live. But they are not 
entitled to a COLA because of a defect in the way we calculate COLAs.
  I have tried to fix this for years by having a special calculation 
for seniors and not one for younger consumers, which is essentially 
what the CPI is oriented towards. It isn't even very reflective of the 
cost of average American families. It is very skewed. It was skewed 
beginning in the Reagan years, and it has never been fixed to try and 
understate real inflation to real Americans.
  In this case, we have an opportunity. We could fix this injustice to 
our seniors and help those most in need, many of whom are either 
principally or totally dependent upon a Social Security income. We 
could give them a one-time $250 payment, which would equate to almost a 
2 percent cost-of-living adjustment. That would cover the increase in 
their Medicare part B premium, maybe some of their Medigap insurance, 
maybe a little bit of what they're having to pay in higher 
pharmaceutical costs. For many seniors it could avert a disaster in 
terms of their personal budgets.
  So I have introduced legislation, along with 14 of my colleagues--
today, I reintroduced it--which would give a one-time $250 payment to 
48.9 million people who are on OASDI, that is Social Security and 
disability, 5.1 on SSI, 1.4 million veterans, and 200,000 railroad 
retirees.
  Now, I want to be fiscally responsible; I don't want to take it out 
of the Social Security trust fund which is looking toward problems some 
37 years down the road or so, or starting in 2037. So I would pay for 
this, and it's quite simple: in order to give this benefit to over 50 
million people, something for them to make ends meet and scratch by, 
all we have to do is ask that that select group of Americans--many of 
whom work on Wall Street--who will earn over $1.4 million this year, 
that for their earnings over $1.4 million they pay the same Social 
Security tax as every working American who earns less than $106,000. 
The tax now is only applied to income up to $106,000. After that, you 
don't pay it. That means if you earn $1.4 million, your tax rate is 
about 7 percent of someone who earns $40,000 a year.
  Let's make it fair. I hear a lot about flat taxes and fairness. Let's 
make it fair; let's make it flat. Let's ask those people who are 
earning over $1.4 million to pay the same percentage of that income in 
Social Security tax as people who earn less than $106,000. And if they 
did that just for 1 year, we could give those 50 million seniors and 
disabled and veterans and railroad retirees a small, $250 one-time 
cost-of-living adjustment. I think it's only fair in this tough economy 
that those at the absolute tiptop just do a little bit more to help 
those most in need.
  I recommend this legislation to my colleagues.

                          ____________________