Walmart vs. QVC

Although those who know me personally know my political beliefs, I typically try not to share them in print because it is nearly impossible to hold meaningful debate with those who may share a differing opinion without someone getting their feelings hurt over a misread sentence or misplaced punctuation.

But a story posted by the Associated Press this past Friday morning got my blood boiling. You might want to read it first at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security_seniors then come back and read the rest of this blog entry.

(Jeopardy theme plays while you're off reading.)

Now that you're back, I hope you are as offended at the writer of that story as I am. It is the job of a journalist to give an unbiased account of the news. Nothing more, nothing less. People are supposed to form their own opinions based upon the facts presented. Going beyond those prinicples makes one a columnist or a blogger, not a reporter.

The title of the story certainly has truth in it. No COLA raise for senior adults on a fixed income will likely mean that many of them will have to cut some corners, particularly if they were budgeting for next year with a COLA raise in mind. Nothing surprising there since the COLA adjustments have been awarded every year since they were first authorized in 1975.

The story could have shown how seniors who were expecting the COLA raise may have to forgo a medical test or procedure they had planned to take, or maybe that they might have to switch to a cheaper prescription because they could not afford the copayment. That should be a legimitate concern of every American.

Nope. This story told the terrible tragedy of how 76-year-old Agnes Conti of Pembroke Pines, FL would not be able to afford any of the finer things in life since she was not getting a COLA raise this year. We were supposed to be drawn to tears because poor Agnes now must "settle" for clothing from Walmart instead of the "nice new clothes" she sees on QVC.

The last time I checked, Walmart was not considered a thrift store. They certainly cater to people looking for a bargain, but so do Target and K-Mart. Why didn't the reporter choose to mention those stores instead of (or in addition to) Walmart? Simple. Because people "understand" that the "less fortunate among us" must shop at Walmart or they cannot make ends meet. Many of the elite among us now view Walmart the same way some view soup kitchens - a place we would never willingly enter. Using Walmart as the example instead of any other store is supposed to tug at our heartstrings and make us feel that this poor lady is somehow being mistreated because she can't afford to shop at QVC or because she has to put a cheaper cut of meat into her pot roast. Now I'm no cook, but isn't one of the beauties of pot roast the fact that if properly prepared, it makes a lesser cut of meat taste more expensive?

The rest of the story is more of the same. Lucy Polieto can't afford steak, and has to prepare eggplant, chicken cacciatori and pasta fazool instead. The last time I checked, many an Italian restaurant owner made a decent living serving those dishes. And somehow all of that would have been rectified if the Social Security Administration had changed their rules and provided a COLA adjustment. Give me a break.

As you determine your position on this story, and the government's role in our lives in general, remember this: every penny the government spends comes from your pocket. Every penny. So make sure YOUR wallet can afford all of the programs the government is budgeting for 2010 and beyond. Otherwise you might have to settle for shopping at Walmart too.