Krusin' the Capitol
By Nebraska State Senator Lowen Kruse
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
Back to Top
Krusin the Capitol Index
Home Page
|
