Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what Arizona state representatives are thinking when they make laws like the recent immigration law. Don’t they have anything better to do? Maybe they should put a little more effort into protecting consumers from dangerous Chinese drywall and the resulting Chinese drywall lawsuits instead of making life difficult for upstanding citizens and tourists.

If you were fortunate (or maybe unfortunate) enough to have experienced 1935 Nazi Germany or the USSR in the 1970’s you know that these types of laws will severely curtail the rights of normal citizens. Everyone in those countries had to be prepared to display their papers instantly or they could be dragged away to jail.

Will a soccer mom of African descent be required to carry her US passport at all times or risk being sent to jail? Will innocent tourists who forget their papers in their hotel room be held in solitary confinement?

Not exactly the type of place I want to raise my kids. Upstanding US citizens will have to worry at all times about special agents trying to catch you and send you away for no good reason. Sounds very familiar to people who lived through previous regimes as mentioned above.

So you dismiss these claims as nonsense and extreme examples? Hmmm… tell that to the holocaust survivors who lived in Germany during the years leading up to that period in time. That’s what everyone said in 1935 as well.

If the intent of the Arizona Immigration Law is to curtail illegal immigration it definitely isn’t the way to achieve any meaningful results. In the meantime everyone’s rights and civil liberties get trampled and our country degenerates into a cesspool of racism and meanness.

Of course some of the details are different in the Arizona law. But if you can’t look past the details and see the big picture then those details are sure to be included in the next offensive law.

It is so typical of the federal government to pretend to offer a solution to the populace only to give only partial relief.  This is what happened with Medicare Part D, prescription coverage.

Part D Medicare covers the cost of prescriptions up to $2700.  If the cost of an enrollee’s prescriptions exceeds $2700, then the enrollee must pay the next $3453 of their prescriptions drugs in full.  There will be no assistance in paying for this.  This is the donut hole.  You must pay for $3453 in prescriptions before another penny will be paid for by Part D Medicare.  That’s the equivalent of paying $287.75 per month to climb out of this hole.  This is in addition to paying the monthly premium for whatever plan that you selected plus the co-pay and deductible that you have already paid.

Many enrollees in Part D Medicare are blindsided when the hit $2700 in prescriptions expenses.  Even though each plans advises them of the $2700 limit, many do not understand what it means until they come face to face with the donut hole.

Unfortunately, in 2007 more than 50% of the enrollees fell into the hole by July and most would up paying for all their prescriptions for the remainder of the year.

There are ways that you can minimize your risk of ever reaching the $2700.

Request your physician to write your prescriptions for generics.  Generics are generally cheaper than brand names and are required to be just as effective by the FDA.

Request that your doctor writes all your prescriptions for 90 days as opposed to 30 days.  Mail-in prescriptions are generally much cheaper and you do not have to run to the pharmacy every 30 days to get your prescription filled.  Also many pharmacies have a list of generics drugs which they will fill for a set amount, such as $10 for a 90 day prescription.  Ask your pharmacy for a list of which drugs are covered under this plan.  Some of the larger retail stores haves pharmacies and also have similar plans.  This could be a significant savings if your drug is listed on their plan.

Some Medicare Part D plans offer some coverage for the donut hole, but these are usually the higher premium plans.  You should check these out, but be sure to compare the increased premium that you will be paying to what you will be paying in prescriptions charges.

Widows, throughout history, have been the most disadvantaged.  Even today, as a group, they rank among the poorest of all groups over 65.  Although they can receive benefits on their deceased husband’s record, it is often too little to pull them from the ranks of poverty.  Even with all the information pointing to this very obvious fact, little has been done over the years to give this very vulnerable group much relief.

To receive Social Security benefits, a widow must be at least 60 years old, or 50 years old if disabled.  At her full retirement age, a widow receives the same amount from Social Security that her deceased husband would have received.  For example, if her deceased husband would have received $1500 a month if he had been living when his widow attains age 66, she would receive $1500 per month.  But should she be only 60 years old at the time of his death, she would receive $1072 per month.  If she is able to delay starting her benefits until age 66, she would receive $1500 plus any cost of living increases.  Unfortunately, many widows cannot wait.

Let’s look at a common situation that I have seen many times during my years with Social Security.  A widow comes in to file for her widow’s benefit.  He husband has just died.  He was working earning $40,000 per year.  She is working earning $20,000 a year.  Using the example in the above paragraph, she will receive $1072 per month.  She may also be able to receive a pension from her husband’s work, but chances are there won’t be any pension.  Her only income will probably be what she receives from Social Security and what she is earning.

But, because she is working, she will not receive widow’s benefits for all 12 months of the year.  Based on 2009 amounts, she can only work and earn $14,160 for the year to receive all her Social Security benefits.  Because she is earning $20,000 a year, she will have $2920 withheld from her initial benefits.  That means that her first three checks will be withheld before any benefits from Social Security will begin.  Her income for the year will be the $20,000 she earns plus what she receives from Social Security, or $9944.

It is estimated that when one member of a couple dies, the surviving member must have at least 79% of  the total income received to maintain his/her current standard of living.  In my example, which is a fairly common, the widow has less that 50% of the income she and her husband received prior to his death.

Even more frightening is what will happen when the widow can no longer work.  She may be able to receive more on her own record, but how much more will it be?  Not much, with earnings of $20,000!

The plight of a widow has improved only marginally over the centuries.  They remain the most impoverished of any group over the age of 65, and more in the U.S. than most European countries.

I was astounded to hear that the Social Security Administration held a management meeting at the posh resort, the Arizona Biltmore. The resort is also called the “Jewel of the Desert”, with 39 acres encompassing multiple swimming pools and a championship golf course. This is not the place you would think an agency that is expected to run out of money within the next 30 years, without substantial tax increases, would hold a meeting for 675 of their employees.

The reported cost of the meeting was about $1000 per person, or $675,000.  I wonder whether or not this included cost of transportation for the employees, who supposedly came from all over the country.

And how many paid speakers were contracted for that is not included in the stated amount?

In addition, there was a motivational dance troupe who invited the managers to participate in the dancing.  It would be interesting to know how much this “motivation” cost the government.

What was the real cost of the meeting, after all expenses were paid?

The purpose of the meeting was to teach managers how to deal with stress due to the increased number of death threats against individual employees or the office.  I guess that was the purpose of the motivational dance troupe—to teach the managers how to dance away their stress.  Somehow, I cannot imagine too many management personnel breaking into a dance in the middle of their office when he or she feels stressed, especially about a death threat.

As a retired 33 ½ year veteran of the Social Security Administration I was, both shocked and appalled when I read about this.  The last 25 years of my career were spent as a manger in a Social Security Office.  I was involved in hundreds of meetings over those 25 years.

NEVER did I experience anything like this.

You have to wonder about the leadership within the agency that would allow something like this to occur with our tax dollars.  Instead of cutting back spending in everyway possible, they are throwing it away trying to teach experienced managers how to deal with stress.

Let’s be honest, if a manger has not learned how to deal with stress by the time he or she becomes a manager, it is highly unlikely that he or she will ever learn. Dance lessons certainly aren’t going to help.

Pete Black

33 ½ Year Veteran Employee of Social Security

Co-Founder of www.socialsecurityinsidersecrets.com

34 Year Veteran Employee of Social Security Blows the Whistle and tells ALL!

How to get your maximum claim in the fastest time possible!