Pros and cons of the un-C.O.L.A.

The Washington Post asked economists, pollsters and politicians whether Congress should fulfill President Obama's request for a one-time $250 payment to Social Security recipients to offset the absence of a cost-of-living adjustment this year.

DIANE LIM ROGERS — Chief economist at the Concord Coalition and blogger at EconomistMom.com: The purpose of a Social Security cost-of-living adjustment is to help incomes keep pace with inflation, which means when there's no inflation, no adjustment in benefits is needed. President Obama claims that this "emergency" aid is justified because seniors' wealth has declined in this recession. But, of course, all kinds of Americans have suffered.

This is not about making seniors "whole." Because seniors are guaranteed to receive Social Security benefits regardless of the strength or weakness of the economy, they more than others have had a significant part of their income protected in this recession, and they received special aid in the last stimulus package, too. This is about taking from one generation and giving to another. By choosing to finance the provision by borrowing, our politicians hope the beneficiaries (seniors) will notice — while those most heavily penalized (our kids and grandkids) are thankfully not old enough to vote. This seems to be a purely political strategy to pander to seniors (once again) over other groups.

DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN — Democratic pollster and author: Seniors should get the emergency $250 payments President Obama proposed Wednesday for political reasons that go well beyond the relatively straightforward reasons most commentators have cited.

It is important to note that the timing of this proposal almost certainly has as much to do with pending health-care legislation as it does with providing an additional benefit to hard-pressed senior citizens; Obama and the Democrats desperately need the support of seniors if legislation is going to pass by

Jan. 1. By announcing the additional benefit in lieu of cost-of-living adjustments, the president will no doubt generate additional goodwill among the voters who so far have shown the greatest inclination to most assertively oppose his health-care reform initiative. With Medicare Part D premiums slated to rise next year and some seniors fearing that their Medicare benefits are likely to be reduced as a result of health-care reform, the president needs to blunt Republican criticism that he is asking the oldest Americans to pay for health care for the youngest.

Because of this, the $250 benefit, on top of the supplement provided in the stimulus bill, will go a long way toward holding on to a voting bloc that will be critical in next year's midterm elections.

This relatively inexpensive $13 billion proposal could well make a difference in both the next round of polling on attitudes toward health-care reform and, ultimately, in the midterm elections — especially if Congress approves it.

RUDOLPH PENNER — Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute; director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1983 to 1987: The Great Panderer strikes again. It is outrageous to give seniors "emergency" aid when so many in our society suffered far more during the recession than the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment. Even if the cost of the proposed handout is paid for with tax increases or cuts in other spending programs, it would be much better to preserve such measures for deficit reduction.

Irresponsible proposals of this type will probably hasten the day when foreigners stop lending us money. Then, seniors may suffer an economic collapse along with everyone else. At that point, there won't be any money available to help them.