COLA formula hurts little guy
The procedure for for al- loting the “Cost of Living” is very flawed.
How about becoming a crusader for remedying the unfair way that COLA is distributed to Social Security recipients? A percentage increase is used instead of a flat increase to all recipients. For example, using a 3 percent COLA, a person who receives $2,000 per month benefit will receive a $60 increase, while someone who receives $800 per month benefit only receives a $24 increase. This is so unfair and archaic. The increase of cost of living is the same for everyone from one year to the next. Therefore, the COLA should be the same amount for each Social Security recipient. Otherwise, the lower monthly benefit recipient falls farther behind every year.
Some may argue that the $2,000 a month recipient has paid more into the system. Well, yes they did, and that is reflected in their much higher monthly benefit already. The cost of living is equal for all of us. I hope you will consider becoming a spokesperson concerning this issue. I’ve written to my senators, congressmen and state politicians and received a deafening silence from them concerning this COLA issue.
Michael Carkido, Austintown
Climate change is real; ask Sandy
Hurricane Sandy has caused billions of dollars in damage to the eastern United States. The severe drought of 2012 also caused billions of dollars of damage.
The severity of both events is likely increased by human-caused global warming. The cost of climate change is real and is being extracted from our economy now. The costs will continue to increase if we do not take decisive action to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses. Our inability to reduce carbon emissions is placing an enormous economic burden on our children.
The solution to the global warming problem is straight forward: increase the efficiency of fossil fuel use, expand renewable energy sources and develop an ecologically sustainable society. Solution to the global warming problem requires strong governmental leadership. Vote for governmental representatives who recognize global warming as the severe problem that it is and are willing to take corrective actions.
Climate change is real and has real economic costs. The argument that curbing greenhouse gas emissions will stifle our economic growth is specious. On the contrary, not curbing greenhouse gas emissions will devastate our economy and that of our children.
Lauren Schroeder, Poland