Sometimes it’s hard to believe that the first primary/caucus for the Democratic nomination for president is still five months away. Politicos around the country have watched the candidates at debates, state fairs and on cable news. It’s not even Halloween and it can feel like we are in the bottom of the ninth inning of the 2020 election cycle, when in reality it’s probably the first inning.  How many of us have heard the pundits give their opinion on the race, only to hear someone else give the exact opposite opinion! While it’s impossible to know who will win the Democratic primary, examining previous voting trends provides clues as to which type of candidates might fare better come next year.  

As I mentioned in my previous blog “Seniors and Voter Participation,” older Americans can always be counted on to vote! For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 66 percent of seniors voted in the 2018 midterm election, compared to 36 percent of young people.  However, voter participation amongst younger voters jumped 79 percent compared to the previous 2014 midterm election, (U.S. Census Bureau). In addition, in the previous two presidential elections voter participation hovered around 70 percent for seniors (U.S. Census Bureau) and 46 percent (U.S. Census Bureau) for young people. Clearly, older Americans are a more reliable voting block than younger voters. Still, young people have become more politically engaged.

Furthermore, what drives young and older voters to the polls to elect a Democrat presidential nominee? According to Yougov/HuffPost and Gallup polls, a person’s age can be an important factor in determining what traits they look for in a presidential nominee.  For example, older voters are more likely to care about electability, while young voters want their party’s nominee to more closely share their ideological views.   

State senator Dick Harpootlian from South Carolina told the Atlantic, “I think older voters would tend to be more pragmatic, and by that I mean simply the assessment going on is, What’s the goal of this election? The vast majority of Democrats, I think, are pragmatic about that. Who is our best choice to go toe to toe with Donald Trump in 2020?.”  Conversely, Lauren Camera in US News and World Report wrote about young people, “They aren't party-ticket voters, they aren't impressed by electability, and candidates can't win their support by crafting specific policies on issues that matter to them. They respond instead to candidates they think share their values and vision for how the country should work and who it should work for…”
​
Who is more likely to vote in the 2020 Democratic primaries? Based on previous elections, I think it’s fair to say seniors will make up a good percentage of the primary voting electorate.  How many young people vote remains to be seen. Young people are voting at higher rates, but will they vote in enough numbers to swing the race for one candidate?  Voter turnout is generally lower in primaries compared to general elections.  However, given how polarizing politics has become, it’s certainly possible that voter turnout throughout 2020 could hit record highs. At this point the only thing about the Democratic primaries I know for sure is that I am not sure who is going to be the party’s nominee. 

Recently, the White House has considered changing how the federal government calculates the poverty line by altering how inflation is measured. As a result, this change would potentially result in fewer people falling below the poverty line. While the idea of having fewer people in poverty sounds great, this proposal would actually cause a smaller number of people to qualify for badly needed government assistance.

The poverty line is critical because it’s used to determine if people are candidates for specific benefits associated with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Presently, individuals who make less than $12,490 a year are under the poverty line, which includes 4.7 million seniors.

Let’s take Medicare as an example. The administration’s change to the poverty line’s calculation would increase the costs of prescription drugs and premiums for low-income seniors. This would impact approximately 250,000 seniors who use prescription drugs and could force 150,000 elderly people to pay more than $1,000 for continued coverage for doctors’ visits.

Sadly, changing the poverty line calculation would also decrease the benefits for older Americans associated with Medicaid. At the moment, millions of adults have qualified for Medicaid expansion through the ACA, including older adults between 50 and 65. Under the administration’s proposal, changing how inflation is measured for the poverty line would cause 250,000 people to lose their Medicaid expansion coverage over a 10-year period.

Unfortunately, the negative impact of changing the poverty line calculation does not stop with healthcare. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) helps people in this country with their energy bills, like those for heat and air conditioning. According to a 2018 survey by the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, seniors are in 46 percent of households that receive LIHEAP. Are we really suggesting cutting benefits from low-income seniors who need help with their energy bills, especially in states with extreme weather like Florida and Minnesota?  

When Congress passed tax cut legislation in 2017, B’nai B’rith argued that ballooning deficits could cause lawmakers to campaign for cuts to important social programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Our press release from December 2017 stated, “Perhaps the biggest danger this Congressional tax plan includes is the likelihood of future cuts to critical federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to help pay down what most economists say will be a massive increase in the deficit that will result from these tax cuts. Experts predict that the ensuing revenue short-fall would have to be made up by drastic cuts to programs fundamental to seniors in need.”

So here we are! The U.S. budget deficit ballooned to $738.6 billion during the first eight months of the 2019 fiscal year, and, as we predicted, proposals have been rolled out that cut benefits from older Americans.
  
Seniors living below the poverty line are not likely to gain full-time employment to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Consequently, I hope the administration rethinks this policy so our country can help meet the challenges faced every day by older Americans.

​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.​​

As everyone is aware from the news, student loan debt is an enormous problem in this country. A whopping 44 million people have incurred a total of $1.5 trillion in debt.  And yes, you read correctly, that’s trillion with a T! Most people associate this crisis with young people in their 20s and 30s. However, there is a rapidly growing population of older Americans who are being crippled by student loan debt. Surprising as it may sound, student loan debt is hurting seniors at an alarming rate.

Now, you are probably saying to yourself, how can that be? How is it possible that people 60+ have not paid back debt incurred in their 20s? First, the student loan debt drowning older Americans was not incurred during their 20s. Seniors with debt tend to be:

1) individuals who took out or cosigned loans to help finance their child or grandchild’s college education, or

2) people who went back to school during the Great Recession in 2008 to improve their marketability for future employers.

These two factors have led to financial hardship on senior citizens.

For example, the Wall Street Journal reported that people age 60+ owe $86 billion in student loan debt, and that between 2010 and 2017, this group’s student loan debt rose by 161 percent. Richard Cordray, former director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), said, “It is alarming that older Americans [age 60+] are the fastest growing segment of student loan borrowers…We are concerned that student loans are contributing to financial insecurity for many older Americans.” According to a report issued by CFPB during the Obama administration, an increasing number of seniors are seeing their Social Security benefits taken to pay back student loan debts, despite this being their only income every month.  In addition, the report states that the increasing debt on the backs of older Americans has caused them to save less for retirement.

Recently, the American Association of Retired People (AARP) reported about Kevin and Tonya Bower from Kelso, Washington.  They took out $75,000 in student loans to pay for their daughter’s college education, as well as their own. They both returned to college during their 40s because of the negative impact the Great Recession had on their careers. Kevin returned to public school to get a bachelor’s degree in business, organizational management and leadership, while Tonya returned to school for a two-year degree in web and graphic design. Although the couple refinanced their loans, they have been forced to reduce their 401(k) contributions due to their $700 monthly loan payments.  

Obviously, the government’s ability to garnish your Social Security if you are delinquent on your federal student loans is problematic for seniors who are financially struggling. Thankfully, Senators Rob Wyden and Sherrod Brown have introduced legislation that would end the federal government’s practice of taking away Social Security benefits to pay back student loan debt. They feel that Social Security should not be used as a vehicle to pay back student loans. Senator Brown said, “Americans work hard to earn their Social Security and we cannot allow it to be stolen away by student debt…instead of going after seniors and the disabled, the government should be working to address the skyrocketing cost of higher education and provide Americans with relief from the crushing levels of student debt.” When a senior’s Social Security benefits are partially seized by the government, the effect can be particularly painful if the senior was unable to personally save for retirement. 

Some people might argue that older Americans shouldn’t be taking out loans for their children and grandchildren to attend college. Why can’t these kids just attend public school?  Unfortunately, according to U.S. News & World Report, even public colleges for in-state residents cost around $40,000 for a four-year education.  For families living paycheck to paycheck, saving up for even state school can be a daunting challenge. 
​
Education, no matter the age of the student, should not come with debt that makes a real retirement unattainable.  Government at all levels should be doing more to ensure that older Americans can provide education for themselves and their family without risking their golden years. 

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.​​

Throughout my time working at B’nai B’rith, I have had the opportunity to tour a majority of our sponsored senior housing properties around the country. Recently, I visited B’nai B’rith Covenant House in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, helping to welcome Rep. Glenn Grothman to the building.  Before the congressman visited, I spoke with residents of the building and noticed how eager they were to advocate for seniors programs like affordable housing. What impressed me the most was that residents were more concerned with building additional senior housing across the country, which would help more seniors, and less worried about current rental reform proposals that could negatively impact them. It was reassuring that their first instincts were to address the affordable housing crisis facing low-income seniors who did not already have the benefit of subsidized safe and affordable housing, as they did.  

Over the past few years I have written numerous blogs detailing how policy proposals debated here on Capitol Hill, could impact older Americans. However, I thought it might be appropriate to highlight one of the faces behind HUD affordable housing for seniors. While visiting Covenant House, I had the pleasure of speaking with Evelyn Brazelton.

Evelyn has been happy to call Covenant House home since August 2018. While originally from Wisconsin, she never stayed in one town long enough to establish roots. Since her father worked on farms as a field hand, the family continuously moved around the state so her dad could find work. Evelyn said that because of the constant moving, coupled with her shy personality, she was never able to establish real friendships with other children. She always considered herself dedicated to family and at 19 married her high school boyfriend.

Evelyn was blessed to have five children and was a homemaker until she was 40, when she started attending technology  school with a focus on math and banking. This allowed her to work as a commercial loan assistant for a bank and at a dentist’s office tasked with accounting and receptionist duties.  
 
Prior to returning to Wisconsin, Evelyn lived with her children in California and Minnesota. Like so many seniors, she did not want to be a burden on her kids, and initially looked for HUD affordable housing in California. Unfortunately, while not surprising, the waiting list for senior housing in California was a year. Evelyn is no different than countless seniors in our country whose only source of income is Social Security, and who were unable to save enough for retirement and are placed on HUD senior housing waiting lists. Just look to B’nai B’rith housing communities across the country where waiting lists to get into our sponsored Section 202 properties can be a year or longer, or even closed. 

Finally, while living with her son in Minnesota, Evelyn got the call that Covenant House had a vacant unit she could call home.

Evelyn has absolutely loved her time living in Covenant House. For instance, she adores the small community feel and, because of her bad back, she appreciates how the building is customized for older persons. Furthermore, she enjoys developing friendships with the other people in the building.

Evelyn has been sick with anemia and she raves about the support in the building from her fellow residents. She talks about how friends in the building go with her to doctor appointments and bring her food. In return, Evelyn tries to be supportive of others in the building who are dealing with health concerns and donates excess clothing to other residents.

Like many residents at Covenant House, Evelyn wants to know why additional HUD senior housing is not being created. With of the aging of the large baby boomers demographic, she doesn’t understand why our government is not prioritizing housing.

Every building in the B’nai B’rith community has someone like Evelyn. Her story, while interesting, is also common throughout HUD senior housing.  She is someone who raised a family and had a professional career, but was unable to save enough for retirement. Programs like HUD senior housing make life just a little easier for older Americans. Consequently, Congress and the White House should be taking Evelyn’s advice, and do everything possible to create more affordable housing for seniors.    

Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.​​

Last summer, something amazing happened on Capitol Hill. There was an agreement between members of Congress from opposing parties. Astonishing!  Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that there should be paid family leave. Now, before you get too excited, that’s about where the good feelings started and ended.  While both parties agreed on the basic premise, they put forth wildly different proposals. 

Paid family leave is the concept that employees should be granted paid time off from work to take care of family members who suffer from serious health issues, or to care for a newborn child. Currently, under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), certain employees may take unpaid leave for 12 weeks and be guaranteed their job upon return. This leave is for serious health issues for an employee or their family member (spouse, parent or child), new child or facts surrounding the deployment of a service member.  The problem with the current FMLA is that employees are not guaranteed income during their leave of absence from work.  

So why should pay be included in our federal laws that govern family leave? First, only about 10 percent of employees are granted paid family leave from their employer.  Furthermore, the employees whose employers offer paid leave are generally higher paid workers. In addition, only six states and the District of Columbia currently have a paid family leave policy. Secondly, not having a federal paid family leave policy causes financial hardship because employees are not receiving their regular income. Research demonstrates that a paid family leave policy with 2/3 wage replacement could reduce family economic insecurity by 81 percent.
 
While most people associate paid family leave with new parents, many people might be surprised to learn that this issue directly impacts seniors. For example, 18 percent of people take FMLA to care for a family member, including parents. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, “The average caregiver over 50 who leaves the workforce to care for a parent loses $303,880 in wages, Social Security and private pensions when they do so.” Furthermore, it’s not just caregivers that need paid family leave. The labor force participation rate for seniors (65+) has grown significantly over the last 25 years. Too often, seniors, because of chronic conditions, must take time off from work to attend to their own serious health matters.

Presently, there are two competing ideas to implement paid family leave. Legislation released over the summer sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio and Congresswoman Ann Wagner would allow new parents, after a child is born, to borrow against their future Social Security for paid parental leave. The benefit from the federal government will last only a few months and will delay people from taking their Social Security benefits by three to six months, for every benefit. 
In theory this legislation sounds promising, especially in the short term. However, paid family leave should not come at the expense of the Social Security retirement system!

According to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, studies demonstrate how challenging it is for workers to forecast their fiscal future in retirement. Having to decide between paid family leave and future retirement defeats the entire purpose of Social Security. The main point of the Social Security Trust Fund is to serve as a secure pot of money for retirement, not individual accounts people can borrow against.

In addition, this proposed legislation does nothing to help people who need paid family leave for themselves, like seniors in the workforce, or for adults who need a source of income while taking care of their senior parent.
Fortunately, there is a better approach!

The Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act sponsored by Senator Kristen Gillibrand and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro provides a significantly better alternative and does not threaten employees’ future Social Security.  This proposal provides paid family and medical leave for newborn children, care for a family member (including a parent) or an employee’s serious health condition. According to the findings from the FAMILY Act:

1. “The average worker age 50 and older who leaves the workforce to care for an elderly parent loses more than $300,000 in earnings and retirement income. Working caregivers should not have to risk their family’s economic security to fulfill their caregiving obligations.”

2. “The population aged 65 and over is expected to double over the next few decades. The number of people with chronic conditions is expected to reach nearly 160,000,000 by 2020. Many of these individuals will at some point require family care, and for older workers still in the workforce, many will need time off at some point to address serious health conditions.”

3. “Ensuring working family caregivers have paid family leave to care for ailing elders could drive down Medicare costs by decreasing recurrences of ailments and re-admittance into hospitals”.

Furthermore, this legislation funds paid family leave through additional revenue stemming from a very modest increase in the payroll tax split evenly between employees and employers. The average cost to employees would be $2.00 per week.  This would cover the benefit to individuals and the program’s administrative costs.

While, I think the legislation has tremendous promise, it’s not without question.  For example, the Social Security Trust Fund will not be able to meet all its financial obligations around 2034. Should this legislation be part of a bigger plan to place Social Security on more secure financial footing?  Certainly, these are fair questions to ask. However, this all part of the legislative process.
​
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle agree that paid family leave in some iteration is important. Like all issues, there are competing approaches to solve the problem.  However, funding paid family leave by taking away from Social Security only opens an additional can of worms.  Taking from one hand to give to the other is irresponsible.  A paid family leave approach, guided by the principles from the FAMILY Act, will help ensure that basic economic needs of all types of families are being met. 
​

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.​​

Since 2013, the federal government has “shut down” four times, three of those times during the Trump administration. A government shutdown occurs when there is a lapse in federal funding because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on appropriations. Usually, this happens because of political brinksmanship, the most recent example stemming from a dispute over the White House refusing to fund the government without first obtaining appropriations to build a border wall between Mexico and the United States. Government shutdowns are inevitably terrible for Americans, especially seniors, because of the loss or slowdown of important government services.  

Many people’s first thoughts about seniors being impacted by a government shutdown are about Social Security and Medicare. While these programs still make payments during a shutdown, Social Security and Medicare still feel the pinch during the government’s closure. For example, basic activities like processing new applications for seniors who desperately need a source of income and health care are delayed, and Social Security has gone as far as terminating the issuance of new cards during a shutdown. 

While Social Security and Medicare are still functional during a government shutdown, our country’s nutrition programs that benefit older Americans, like Meals on Wheels and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), could be impacted more significantly. For instance, the office of Food and Nutrition Services that oversees SNAP could see major staff reductions during any shutdown.  Furthermore, if the shutdown persists too long, SNAP could run out of funding completely, which would impact the 4.8 million people aged 60 and above who rely on the program. Lastly, in the run-up to the government shutdown of January 2018, Meals on Wheels America President and CEO Ellie Hollander, said, “The number of hungry, isolated seniors who may not know where their next meal is coming from has doubled over the past 20 years…A government shutdown for any considerable length of time would lead to a delay in federal funding reimbursements for meals and services delivered, forcing Meals on Wheels programs to make near impossible choices such as suspending meal services, initiating or expanding waiting lists for meals, reducing the number of meals or delivery days or even closing their doors altogether.”

Obviously, B’nai B’rith International, as a sponsor of Section 202 supportive housing for the elderly, takes a keen interest in funding lapses that impact the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  During a short-lived government shutdown, HUD should be able to meet its basic obligations to the Section 202 program.  However, the longer shutdowns last, the greater the likelihood HUD won’t have the funding to meet its core responsibilities.   
​
During any government shutdown, members of Congress or the President should not be advancing their own political agenda at the expense of government programs that benefit seniors and all Americans. Basic needs like nutrition and housing should be fully funded, without the threat of a government shutdown. The exact impact of a government shutdown always varies. However, the harm it causes people remains constant. While the most recent government shutdown will eventually end, at this point in our country’s history, another shutdown always seems sadly inevitable. 

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.​

Recently, I received a very strange voicemail from my grandfather indicating he had put together the money to bail me out of jail.  Obviously, this message caught my attention, because at that moment I was watching TV on the couch with my fiancé, a far cry from wearing an orange jumpsuit behind bars.  I immediately called back and learned that someone claiming to be a lawyer contacted him indicating I was currently in prison for getting into a car accident due to driving while texting. And of course, I would be released from jail if my grandfather sent the attorney $9,800 for my bail. I quickly informed him none of that story was true, and he should under no set of circumstances send this individual money.  Thankfully, no real harm was done to my grandfather, and this incident will only serve as a cautionary tale for when another con artist inevitably preys on him.   

Later that day, I was on the phone with my grandmother and relayed my grandfather’s story.  During the call, she told me of a different scam she experienced where someone called claiming to be her bank and said she owed them $3,000.  Fortunately, she called my mother to verify the caller’s claim, and my mom quickly realized it was a scam.  

While both of my grandparents were lucky, I know that countless seniors are not so fortunate.  After hearing my grandparents’ stories, I couldn’t help but wonder about other types of sophisticated scams that target seniors. After researching, I learned that con artists call seniors claiming to be from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) indicating that they owe the government money for taxes, and failure to pay will result in their arrest. Another scam occurs when people read the obituaries, then call the grieving family asking for money, fraudulently claiming the deceased was in their debt.    

Can you imagine the type of low-life who calls seniors, scaring them into thinking they are going to jail, or steals money from the elderly while they are grieving for a loved one?
​
Last March, the Senate Special Committee on Aging had a hearing called “Stopping Senior Scams,” where this was topic was addressed.  During the hearing, Chairman Susan Collins disclosed the IRS impersonation scam had been the most consistently reported to the Committees’ hotline over the past three years.  Furthermore, because of information obtained by the hotline, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration was able to arrest 15 people associated with a scam that stole about $9 million.  However, efforts to fight this type of criminal behavior must continue in earnest, because according to the Department of Justice, about $3  billion continues to be stolen from seniors each year.
 
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seniors are unfortunately susceptible to scams for a variety of reasons. These include: Older Americans tend to own “nest eggs” and have outstanding credit; seniors often do not report fraud because they are embarrassed or unsure of who to contact; and  scam artists know that seniors make poor witnesses because they have a difficult time recalling facts.  A former conman awaiting sentencing in California for the “grandparent scam” explained, “You can make $10,000 sometimes in a day if you do it properly,” despite only generating a 2 percent success rate. Asked why scammers pick on seniors, he said, “We target people over the age of 65, mainly, because they're more gullible…They're at home. They're more accessible. Once you get them emotionally involved, then they'll do anything for you, basically.”
 
So, what can seniors do to avoid being taken advantage of? It’s simple: Never give personal financial information over the phone, unless you placed the call; set privacy settings on social media accounts to their highest levels; and, to ensure that a phone call is really coming from a loved one, ask questions over the phone that only a family member would know.
 
Hopefully, through public awareness and education, seniors can be less vulnerable to these types of scams. However, in the meantime, I applaud my great-uncle, who has been frequently targeted by these types of scams.
 
He simply hangs up the phone, but beforehand, he asks the con artist, “Does your mother know what you do for a living?”  

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

Capitol Hill has been relatively quiet recently because members of Congress are back home pounding the pavement stumping for votes. With election day only a few weeks away, now is a great time for me to blog about the important role older Americans will play in the upcoming election. With a rapidly expanding senior population, politicians across the country will have to court seniors if they hope to be victorious. Consequently, older adults are in a great position to make elected officials take notice of the issues important to them, whether that’s Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social Security or affordable housing.

First, seniors are in an advantageous position to be heard because they are one of the biggest voting blocks in the country. According to the United States Census Bureau, 70 percent of seniors (65+) turned out to vote in the 2016 presidential election, and in a recently conducted poll, 74 percent of seniors say they plan to vote in the upcoming midterm elections. As statistics demonstrate, seniors keep showing up at the polls in large percentages, and the number of older Americans keeps rising. This translates to one important point; our leaders running for political office should be paying attention to the issues important to a good percentage of the electorate: A demographic group which continuously grows!

So why are the 2018 midterm elections so important for seniors? During the past two years our elected representatives in Washington D.C. have debated legislation with major implications for older adults. For example, in 2017 Congress and the administration put forth serious proposals that would have negatively impacted older Americans. These include repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, cutting affordable housing and the enactment of tax reform legislation. Fortunately, with the exception of the tax reform legislation, these bills never became law. On a positive note, the 2018 government funding bill included more than $100 million dollars for the creation of additional low-income seniors housing. These policies play a critical role in the daily lives of older Americans, and illustrate why seniors’ activism is so important.   

One state where seniors can definitely make their voices heard is in Florida, home to about 4 million seniors and the site of a hotly contested Senate race. A state whose population is 20 percent seniors is in a great position to demand that candidates running for public office protect the needs of older Americans. In the 2014 Florida midterm elections voters 50 and over accounted for a whopping 67 percent of ballots cast. Furthermore, a recently conducted poll of Florida residents ages 50 and over revealed that 82 percent of respondents reported Social Security as a very important issue, coupled with 74 percent for Medicare. Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer said, “Candidates who ignore the issues that matter to voters age 50 and up do so at their own peril,” and “Older voters were decisive in the last two elections, and they will likely be decisive this year as well.”

Older Americans should take the time to learn about the positions of candidates running for office.  Go to town hall meetings where candidates take questions from constituents. Ask the candidate if they are going to cut financial resources from important senior programs. Remind elected officials that your contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund were not intended to pay for other government programs.

When Congress returns from election day, lawmakers might feel more emboldened to make big policy changes to senior programs that impact healthcare, nutrition, housing and income security.  
​
Now is the time when every American should make their voice heard, especially seniors!

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

Since I started my job at B’nai B’rith International, I have written several blogs being critical of the Trump Administration and Congress’ proposals to cut funding from affordable housing. Over the past twenty months, there have not been many opportunities to applaud our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. for bi-partisan legislation that looks to tackle the severe shortage of reasonably priced homes in this country. Consequently, the recently introduced bipartisan Senate legislation, called the Task Force on the Impact of the Affordable Housing Crisis Act, should be positively recognized. The purpose of this task force is to study how affordable housing financially impacts other government programs (federal, state and local), different facets of people’s lives (i.e. health, nutrition, education, employment, etc.) and make policy recommendations to Congress on how affordable housing can strengthen additional federal programs.   
​
Working at B’nai B’rith offers me the unique opportunity to see how housing is intertwined with other areas of senior’s lives, especially health care. One of the goals of B’nai B’rith is to “age in place” which we accomplish through our sponsored Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 housing. Older Americans are able to “age in place” because service coordinators connect residents with community based services, which have demonstrated a greater likelihood of retaining residents in their existing buildings and therefore avoiding more pricey institutions like a nursing home.

The benefits of the Section 202 program go to the very heart of what this potential task force is hoping to accomplish, that is, to find ways affordable housing can help other federal programs. For example, the financial cost of three seniors in a Section 202 building with home and community-based services is about the same as one person in a nursing home. Keep in mind that Medicaid is a key subsidizer of nursing homes. According to HUD, 38 percent of Section 202 tenants are frail or near-frail, and consequently need help with daily activities, making them potential candidates for long-term institutional care. Therefore, the more Section 202 buildings that can be developed for frail or near-frail seniors, the less financial resources Medicaid will require for nursing homes.
​
In addition, bi-partisan policy solutions generally have a better chance of becoming law, especially in the Senate. This legislation was introduced by U.S. Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Angus King (I-Maine), along with cosponsors from both political parties. Furthermore, the people who serve on the Task Force will be appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. These Senators should be commended for taking an important “first step” toward discovering how integral affordable housing is to other federal programs. 
 
Obviously, the introduction of this legislation is a far cry away from being sent to the president’s desk for his signature, and even further away from any policy recommendations from the task force to Congress. However, you have to walk before you can run. Hopefully, this legislation becomes a reality, and the policy proposals are Congress’ full sprint towards creating additional affordable housing in the country. 

Currently the Affordable Care Act (ACA) protects people with pre-existing conditions by outlawing health insurance companies from refusing to sell plans to individuals because of existing health issues. These protections are particularly important for older Americans who obviously are more likely to have a pre-existing condition. Unfortunately, these protections could be compromised by Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision not to defend the ACA’s in a lawsuit brought by Texas and 19 other states. The basic premise behind the litigation is that because of last year’s tax reform legislation, the individual mandate has been effectively eliminated because people will no longer be taxed for not carrying health insurance. Taken one step further, these 20 states argue that because the individual mandate is so integral to the ACA, that the rest of the legislation should be found unconstitutional (it should be noted the administration is only arguing pre-existing protections and community ratings should be found invalid). Currently around 25 million older Americans (50 to 64) could be denied insurance in the individual market if the protections for people with pre-existing health conditions are eliminated.   

First the DOJ’s  decision is concerning because it runs contrary to its own long standing tradition of generally defending federal law in litigation, even if the current administration is ideologically opposed to the policy. Law professor Nicholas Bagley from the University of Michigan who used to work at the DOJ said, “I am at a loss for words to explain how big of a deal this is. The Justice Department has a durable, long-standing, bipartisan commitment to defending the law when non-frivolous arguments can be made in its defense. This brief torches that commitment.”
In addition, in a letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to House Speaker Paul Ryan regarding this litigation, Sessions argues that without the individual mandate, “individuals could wait until they become sick to purchase insurance, thus driving up premiums for everyone else.” Meaning people could go without insurance until they become sick, and because of pre-existing conditions protections insurance companies would be forced to sell sick people policies, thus driving up the costs for everyone else. If I understand this correctly, Congress and the White House repeal the individual mandate, which will likely drive up health insurance premiums, and their solution to this problem is to deny protections for people with pre-existing conditions. 

While a final resolution regarding this litigation is a ways off, currently the ACA has been instrumental in providing improved health care protection and coverage for older Americans. For example, according to the Commonwealth Fund in 2010, 43 percent of individuals between the ages of 50 to 64 who attempted to purchase health care coverage where either rejected, charged higher premiums or had certain health conditions omitted from policies. The ACA combats these problems by not allowing people to be denied for pre-existing conditions, limiting what insurance companies can charge older Americans compared to younger people and regulating individual’s insurance premiums through tax credits. The Commonwealth Fund reports between 2012 to 2016 older Americans between 50 and 64 saw the uninsured rate drop from 13 to 8 percent. Clearly older Americans have seen substantial improvements in health insurance access since the ACA was enacted; eliminating protections for pre-existing conditions will inevitably cause older adults health care costs to increase.

Furthermore, as I have reported in my previous blog, Repealing and Replacing The Affordable Care Act And Its Impact on Medicare, older Americans who don’t have health insurance prior to turning 65 are more likely to require more expensive health care once they enroll in Medicare.  The Justice Department’s decision not to defend pre-existing conditions in litigation will only make older adults less healthy before they enroll in Medicare by potentially limiting access to health insurance.  

Lastly, this litigation flies in the face of public opinion. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, support for pre-existing protections is solid across the political spectrum with support amongst 84 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Independents and 59 percent of Republicans.

Thankfully, the ACA is still standing and our elected officials in Washington, D.C. have been unable to repeal and replace the ACA. Realizing that a legislative repeal of the ACA might be unworkable, everything has been done to weaken this legislation. The administration has drastically reduced the ACA’s advertising budget, eliminated the cost-sharing subsidies and expanded short-term health plans which don’t offer key ACA protections.

Sadly, the current lawsuit’s end result could potentially strip away basic health care protections for older Americans. What happens if the court sides with the plaintiffs and gets rid of pre-existing conditions protections? Are older Americans expected to go back to a health care system where their plans are more expensive and protections are less stringent? Let’s hope for the sake of all Americans our court system protects safeguards put in place by the ACA for people with pre-existing protections.