Not being able to afford a trip to the grocery store is something nobody should have to worry about. But for millions of Americans their diets are tied to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); government assistance administered through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and individual states that provides financial resources to people who need help affording food. According to the National Council of Aging Organizations, roughly 4.8 million older adults (60+) receive SNAP. To qualify households must meet income requirements, with benefit levels fluctuating depending on need. 
​
Currently, SNAP benefits play a critical role by providing older Americans a more healthy lifestyle by ensuring they don’t lose strength and muscle mass, and reinforcing their immunity. A weakened immunity is particularly problematic given the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an article entitled "SNAP is Linked with Improved Nutritional Outcomes and Lower Health Care Costs” that reports benefits have a direct link to healthier outcomes for seniors and less spending on health care costs. The article said: 

We have all seen the statistics that America is graying and our country needs to meet the challenges of a growing senior population. Oftentimes, those statistics are discussed in the context of Social Security and Medicare, two very popular government programs. However, what is often not discussed is the concept of providing affordable long-term care insurance. According to the National Institute on Aging: 
​
“Long-term care involves a variety of services designed to meet a person's health or personal care needs during a short or long period of time. These services help people live as independently and safely as possible when they can no longer perform everyday activities on their own. Long-term care is provided in different places by different caregivers, depending on a person's needs … It can also be given in a facility such as a nursing home or in the community, for example, in an adult day care center.” 

Currently, in the United States less than 10% of Americans have long-term care insurance, partially because it’s not covered by Medicare and premiums are cost prohibitive. The issue gets compounded because 50% of people who turn 65 will require some assistance with long-term care and, given the exploding senior population, you see why providing “affordable care” is a problem that will only get worse.
 
Recently, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) introduced the WISH Act that looks to make catastrophic long-term care insurance more economical. Suozzi’s legislation would provide beneficiaries an average of $3,600 a month for care, with the timing of benefits determined by an individual’s income and physical needs. Furthermore, Suozzi believes this legislation would ease the government’s financial obligations because less people would need to spend down their assets to qualify for long-term care through Medicaid. Suozzi said, “We have a storm coming, with the number of disabled elders expected to double in the coming years. Fewer family caregivers are available for these aging Americans and the market for long-term care insurance is not currently sufficient to address these demographic challenges. The WISH Act would save the Medicaid program and millions of Americans from financial ruin, would allow people to age at home with dignity, and would create millions of good-paying, middle class jobs in the home health care industry.” 

In addition, similar to Social Security, the WISH Act would not contribute to the debt because the program would create a trust fund that would be financed by a 0.3% wage tax on employees and employers. Also, Suozzi argues that the legislation would allow the private insurance market to offer more affordable plans because insurance companies would not have to guard against catastrophic long-term care. 

It’s not just Suozzi who is problem solving; currently, Washington state is launching a long-term care insurance program that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. Benefits are awarded based on physical need and have a lifetime cap of $36,500. The program is funded through a 0.58% payroll tax on wages and individuals may opt out if they purchase their own insurance. This legislation is projected to save $1.9 billion by 2052 for Washington Medicaid. Like the WISH Act, proponents of the bill argue cost savings will be realized because people won’t have to use Medicaid to pay for long term care. 

Nobody should have to go broke or go without care simply because they are getting older. As our senior population keeps growing and private insurance continues to be unaffordable, our country’s long-term care crisis is only getting worse. Legislative fixes that ease the financial burden on Medicaid and provide affordable long-term care must be examined. As we prepare for the future, we should work under the premise that caring for older Americans is more than shoring up existing programs like Social Security and Medicare, but also looking to find ways to expand care, which must include solutions to our advancing long-term care crisis.

Recently, my wife was reading an article in the New York Times, “How Deceptive Campaign Fund-Raising Ensnares Older People,” that details how political campaigns take advantage of seniors. As I work at the Center for Senior Services (CSS), she pointed me in the direction of the story, which grabbed my attention. After conducting further research, I discovered that seniors have been victimized by political campaigns that implement deceptive practices. 

The article highlights that when individuals donate money online, campaigns employ prechecked boxes that automatically sign up donors for recurring payments. Donors have to uncheck the box in order to escape the recurring donation. According to the Times, it’s not just prechecked boxes, but seniors are targeted with headlines that reference “Social Security” and use provocative headlines like “Final Notice” and “lose the House for good” to encourage contributions. In addition, the Times reported on Victor Amelino, a California resident who is 78 and retired. He made a $900 campaign contribution that unknowingly increased to $8,000. Amelino said, “I’m retired. I can’t afford to pay all that damn money.” 

According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Political Data Inc., in California refunds from political donations during the 2020 election cycle skewed heavily towards seniors. For example, the average age for refunds was about 65 and around 60% of refunds went to individuals aged 60 and over. Clearly this is a problem impacting older Americans. 

However, hope is not lost! Recently the FEC, in a bipartisan unanimous vote, recommended that Congress pass legislation that bans political campaigns from automatically making one-time donations into recurring payments. Acting on the recommendation, Sens. Dick Durbin and Amy Klobuchar introduced legislation called, “Rescuing Every Contributor from Unwanted Recurrences” (RECUR Act) that forbids prechecked donation boxes from being used by political campaigns. “As we work to reform our campaign finance system, we must ensure that people are empowered to make their voices heard—but that will only happen if Americans trust that campaigns aren’t taking advantage of them through tactics like pre-checked recurring donation boxes,” said Klobuchar. “Following the FEC’s unanimous vote, it’s clear we should take action to ban this practice and ensure contributors are fully informed. This legislation will do just that.” 

In addition, New York, Minnesota, Maryland and Connecticut’s attorneys generals have begun requesting documents from both political parties to investigate this practice. New York Attorney General Letitia James in a letter wrote, “Our offices have significant experience with prechecked solicitations and other forms of ‘negative option’ marketing to consumers. We believe that such solicitations can be inherently misleading, and result in consumers making unwanted and unintended purchases.” 

Unfortunately, it’s not just political campaigns; political action committees (PACs) also prey on seniors. PACs are organizations that solicit money—depending on their classifications—for the purpose of spending the funds on candidates, political parties or independent political expenditures. According to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, reputable PACs spend less than 25% of their donations on fundraising and warn that most spending should be directed towards candidates and other political efforts. 

In 2019, in Montgomery County, Maryland, the Government Office of Consumer Protection (OCP) conducted an investigation into Heroes United PAC, an organization that claimed to support the volunteer fire department. According to the OCP’s findings, 90% of their revenue was directed toward telemarketing vendors that solicited donations, which were connected to the PAC. Furthermore, the telemarketers used Montgomery County area codes and addresses to make the PAC look legitimate. Ultimately, the two sides reached a settlement where the PAC agreed to refund all donations since 2017 and to discontinue contacting county residents.

Fortunately, the AARP published articles, “Fraudsters Use Political Action Committees to Rip Off Older Americans” and "Political Scams," that provide useful cautionary information so seniors can avoid getting victimized. The AARP suggests visiting the FEC’s website to learn about how PACs spend their money, visit the PAC’s website to identify their senior leadership and warn against donating to organizations that contact you randomly and ask for private information. 

About a year ago the Pew Research Center released a poll that indicated 20% of Americans “trust the government in Washington to ‘do the right thing’ just about always or most of the time.” While I believe the federal government never gets credit for its success stories, sometimes you read articles like the ones in the Times, and it explains people’s lack of faith in elected officials. Sadly, money in politics is not going away, which means that we must remain vigilant against misleading campaign practices. Hopefully, legislation like the RECUR Act can be signed into law, which is an important first step toward protecting people, in particular seniors, from deceptive campaign fundraising.

Throughout my time working at B’nai B’rith, I have written about a variety of topics that impact older Americans, ranging from gun reform laws, climate change, health care, social security, student debt and so forth. However, in recent years, there are few topics that inspire as much passion as voting rights. I have written blogs entitled, “Long Lines at Polling Stations During a Pandemic: It’s Time to Expand Voting from Home” and “Seniors and Voter Identification Laws” both of which advocate for greater access for seniors to the ballot box. 

As many people are aware, several states have started debating and passing legislation that further regulates older Americans’ access to voting. For example, Wisconsin, Texas, Florida and Georgia have all either passed or are debating legislation that will make voting problematic. Many of these bills reduce the number of drop boxes, make absentee voting more difficult, ban drive through voting, limit assistance at the polls and forbid election officials from sending unsolicited ballots to people’s homes. 

A central theme for these bills is that people with mobility issues are going to have a more difficult time participating in our elections. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 11.2 million people age 65 and older have self-reported travel-limiting disabilities. Legislation that increases the likelihood seniors will have to needlessly wait online to vote will only discourage people from participating in our democracy. 

For example, recently passed legislation by the Wisconsin legislature requires an “indefinitely confined” individual’s absentee ballots to be returned by a family member who lives in the state, if such a person exists. This still applies even if your only family member lives on the opposite side of the state. Governor Tony Evers has indicated he is likely to veto this legislation. 

In Texas, legislators are debating making it a felony, punishable by jail time, to send absentee ballot applications to voters who didn’t request one. In the last election, Texas counties sent voters 65 and older mail-in ballots unprompted. Governor Greg Abbott has indicated that he intends to sign the final bill into law. 

In Florida, a recently signed law restricts drop boxes from being open 24/7. Instead the drop boxes’ hours will coincide with a county’s early voting hours so the boxes can be monitored at all times. Also, some groups are concerned the law would prohibit them from passing out food and water to people in line to vote, so as to not influence voters. 

While protecting the integrity of our elections is an important objective, evidence demonstrates voter fraud is not a problem in our country. According to the New York Times, after the 2020 election, they reached out to election officials in every state, and 49 states reported no “major voting issues.” While Texas didn’t formally respond, Harris County, the largest county in Texas, reported only a few small issues and indicated that “we had a very seamless election.” 

In Georgia, the secretary of state’s office reported that, during our last presidential election, not one single case of fraud was discovered during an audit of over 15,000 absentee ballots. 

Presently, these bills are being challenged in court. For instance, disability rights groups in Georgia are arguing that the state’s legislation violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Also, the Justice Department is suing Georgia on the grounds the law is discriminatory against Black voters. 

In Florida, the Alliance for Retired Americans is joining with other groups to legally challenge the state’s new voting law. “This law will make it more difficult for millions of Florida citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote,” said Bill Sauers, president of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans. “Older Floridians take the right to vote seriously, and we will fight any attempt to keep our voices from being heard.” 

“These bills are in seek of a problem that does not exist in the state of Wisconsin,” said State Sen.. Melissa Agard, of Madison. “They’re making it harder for our friends and neighbors across the state to vote, especially our seniors, especially our people with disabilities, especially people of color.” This quote from Agard crystalizes the problem with the states’ decisions to enact new voting laws. 

Why make it more difficult particularly for seniors and disabled Americans who are least able to vote when it seems clear that our elections are not being threatened by voter fraud?