news-record.com

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, conservatives were outraged. They called it socialism and accused President Franklin D. Roosevelt of bankrupting the nation with his "financial hocus-pocus," as an editorial in The New York Times said.

In a radio address to the nation, Roosevelt said, "Because it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own security, government must now step in and help them lay the foundation stones."

Social Security became one of the biggest "stones" of the New Deal. It was reportedly FDR's favorite New Deal policy. Yet some still brayed against it. The late Sen. Barry Goldwater wanted to abolish it, and economist Milton Friedman said it destroyed personal freedom.

Today, you won't find many Americans wishing to repeal Social Security. Nor do they dare call it socialism even though -- perish the thought -- it actually is socialistic.

Occasionally a president comes up with an irresponsible idea for tampering with it. Such as former President George W. Bush, who thought Social Security funds should be invested in the stock market. It was Al Gore who famously (and rightly) said the fund should be protected in "a lock box" from the erratic gyrations of the stock market.

Recently, President Barack Obama came up with an idea that's also misguided. He wants to send a check for $250 to each of America's more than 48 million Social Security recipients.

It's part of Obama's plan to stimulate the economy. It's also being justified because senior citizens will not get a cost-of-living increase in 2010. (Cost-of-living raises each year are based on inflation increases, but this year there was deflation.)

The $250 giveaway will cost a whopping $14 billion.

At a time when the federal deficit is soaring, Obama's own economic advisers are reportedly opposed to the bonus.

Obama's political opponents are accusing him of "pandering" to senior citizens, who comprise a powerful voting bloc and faithfully show up at the polls.

David Leonhardt, a business writer for The New York Times, recently wrote that senior citizens are the group who least need the $250 checks because they have an assured income (Social Security) and assured health care (Medicare).

Like all Americans, retirees have been hit by the Great Recession, but not as hard as younger adults who worry about losing their job and health insurance for themselves and their families.

Cost-of-living increases were never a fixture of the original Social Security program. In 1940, Ida May Fuller, a retired secretary in Vermont, became the first recipient of a Social Security check. It totaled $22.54. She continued to get that same amount each month for 10 years.

Later, the federal government began raising Social Security benefits each year to keep up with inflation. It was politically expedient and often occurred near election time.

President Richard Nixon and Congress finally made it permanent in the 1970s by creating a formula linking cost-of-living increases to the inflation index.

But this year there was deflation, not inflation, and benefits will not rise. So Obama is trying to justify his $250 giveaway to seniors by saying it will help fill the vacuum and also stimulate the economy.

Millions of senior citizens live on limited incomes and tight budgets. They could desperately use that $250 check, but there are millions of other retirees who are financially comfortable and/or rich. They plainly don't need it.

So here's a counterproposal: Establish a financial means test whereby seniors whose income falls below a certain standard would receive the $250 check, but those whose incomes are above that standard would not.

It doesn't make sense, for example, to send $250 to Warren Buffett, Ross Perot, Ted Turner and other affluent seniors. It does make sense to send it to needy seniors.

If more stimulus money is to be spent, send it to groups that Leonhardt described in his Times column. Namely: young people who have an 18 percent unemployment rate. The long-term unemployed who are ineligible for unemployment benefits. And retirees who are truly needy.

But sending $250 to all seniors -- rich and poor alike -- is money misspent. Think again, Mr. President.

Rosemary Roberts writes a column for the News & Record on alternate Fridays. E-mail: rmroberts@triad.rr.com.