Excuse Me? How Much For That Vote?

By Semperpapa

For the second year in a row, the Obama administration has denied COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) to Social Security recipients. The decision has been made in response to the rate of inflation remaining flat.

But there is a difference between last year and this year: mid-term elections.

The Obama crowd, then, goes shopping. The President is pushing Congress to pass a bill that would give $250 to each of the current recipients of Social Security benefits. The number of beneficiaries should be approximately 58 million people.
It is unclear at this time if in that number illegal aliens and deceased Americans are included, but the bill would translate into a taxpayer funded vote buying shopping spree of between $13 and $14 billion, a number that, considering the fact that these days the word “trillion” is more representative of the current spending policy of Obama, is really not that much.

The real reason behind the “generosity” of the Obama regime is that the move is nothing more than the attempt to place a price on the vote of seniors and others SS recipients.
When the bill was proposed last March, it was defeated in the Senate by a 47-50 vote. The rejection was due to the electorate vibes that Democrats were already receiving from their constituencies and which they did not want to aggravate by adding even more to the already disastrous deficit.

But now, two weeks before the mid-term elections that by all accounts are shaping up to be devastating for the Democrat Party and the RINOs, Obama wants Congress to take up the bill again in the hope that that section of the population will be willing to sell their ballots to the Liberals for $250.

The usual suspects chimed on Obama’s move: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Pelosi’s office issued a statement:

"Instead of helping seniors, Republicans, backed by their allies on Wall Street, are threatening to privatize and cut Social Security, just as they tried to do under President Bush."

Blah, blah, blah…all Bush’s fault again.

Harry Reid stated:

"The only thing standing in the way of America's seniors receiving this critical support are Senate Republicans."

It’s all the Republicans’ fault, even if the small detail of several Democrats rejecting the bill in March goes conveniently unmentioned.

When asked about the mechanism that would allow the expenditure to be made without adding to the deficit, neither Pelosi nor Reid gave any specific answer except that it would be “fiscally responsible.”

Does anyone in America believe that these two characters have the foggiest idea of the meaning of the words “fiscally responsible?”
I know, me either. Rhetorical question.

If I was a Social Security recipient I would definitely feel insulted by this move, because I value my vote at least double the price Obama is willing to pay.

Just my thoughts!