2005
Week 5
February 5, 2005

Hi

Found another new legislating phrase, which is really a reach. "Woodwork effect." As in, what is the effect of senior citizens coming out of the woodwork? It is a federal term, which propels the devious mind into all sorts of fun interpretations.

For the record, "Woodwork effect" applies to certain (devious?) senior citizens. When an elderly soul applies for Medicare for the first time, a few will now discover that the new Medicaid prescription regs apply to them. They do not know that they qualify for more $$$, and their family and friends have not put them up to this. But suddenly they come out of the woodwork and the feds have advised us to budget $3 million of new money to prepare for their appearance. Hey, are we having fun yet?

The big news in Nebraska this week was that the president came to Omaha to promote his personal investment accounts for Social Security. And, according to headline after headline, to court Senator Nelson's vote. Ruth had a private conversation with the senator last week and knows how this will all play out. But we are not about to spoil the questioning stories, which certainly are fun.

To help make his points, the president had four selected persons on stage. We know one of them, who told of her mother on Social Security, who died and left some medical bills, which they were struggling to pay since S. S. did not help. Nice story. Her mother also left a modest but substantial estate which paid all the bills. Certainly there would be persons with that kind of experience.

Frankly, I praise the president for bringing up the subject. It is certainly not a "crisis" and you will not hear him use the term again. But it is a long range problem which most national politicians have skated around using pious platitudes, whatever their political stripe. Taking money away from the trust fund to buy personal stocks is a losing, expensive idea. But what could the spinoffs be? Let's get the whole country talking about our future security. Wow!

All the talk, by all sides, has avoided the central purpose of the Social Security Act. So my contribution to the discussion is to note that only one columnist, that I have seen, has recognized that the debate is not young vs. old, stocks vs. interest, or Republicans vs. Democrats. It is (by David Shribman): "Personal freedom vs. collective responsibility." Wonderfully concise!

You and I have not simply been paying into a personal insurance account, or investing in our future as we watch the rate of return. I am also paying into my "insurance" on my friends and neighbors -- that they will not be desperate in old age, with no means of support, causing folks to come to my door for a donation so good old Mrs. Jones will not starve. Carving out part of my tax payment for Mrs. Jones, to go to my personal account, is a denial of social security and our collective responsibility.

That is a bit heavy, but it is the subject we must consider. Let's have at it. For example, why not have a certain percentage of the trust fund invested in stocks, so we can all have the benefit of an improved rate of return?

I have ten bills in this year, and have co-signed an additional 41. Some will improve life and some will just get a good conversation going. One that would improve life a tiny bit has already been killed. It would have increased the minimum liability on auto insurance. If someone goes roaring through a stop light and T-bones your car, for example, at present the minimum medical liability for one person's injury is $25,000. That will not pay for the first night in the hospital for serious injury. And if this dude creamed your new SUV, law limits property liability to $25,000. For the privilege of being hit you are to pay the rest. Hopefully you have "underinsured" insurance, but you do pay for it.

Several insurance people told me doubling these arounts will not raise the rates for 9 out of 10 persons, who already carry more. For that other person it would be $25 a year for an adult's car. The bill was killed because it might hurt the high-risk person who has to pay more for insurance. Well. We are supposed to subsidize the risks of a lawbreaker? Since health insurance ends up paying for the extra costs, this is also a factor driving up our health insurance premiums. Frustrating.

Highlight of the week was a young nurse who testified for one of my impaired driving bills. With her perky blonde pony tail and clear young voice she began to tell her story. Her voice started cracking half way through, but she kept going. She was hit by a speeding car going through a red light, driver heavily impaired. She lost her car, her savings, part of her health, and is still trying to pay the bill. She found out he had been arrested before, and as she healed learned he did the same thing again. Her pain and suffering put a human face on what it is like to be an innocent victim and her outrage that we do so little to protect our citizens from our biggest killer was on target.

You stay on target.

Lowen