Tag Archives for Washington Post

Winning the Votes of Older Women

Published in Pawtucket Times on October 10, 2016

On Oct. 7, Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthol’s story broke detailing a three minute video of GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump wearing a hot microphone during a 2005 bus ride with former-host Bill Bush, of “Access Hollywood” to the set of “Days of Our Lives” where the real estate mogul had a walk on cameo on the soap opera. The video captured Trump saying “And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything …Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything” and crudely describing his failed attempts to seduce a woman while being recently married.

Reaction came swiftly to Trump’s locker room banter with Bush. “No woman should never be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” said Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who was doing damage control to keep woman voters from voting Democrat. The leaked video has also resulted in a number of Republican Senate and House candidates running in November to withdrawal their endorsements of Trump.

This is horrific,” Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton said on Twitter, noting a link to the Washington Post article. “We cannot allow this man to become president.”

The embattled Trump initially issued a statement and later a video to try to defuse the controversy and get his flailing campaign back on track 30 days before the November presidential election.

Many political pundits believe that Trump’s off-the-cuff comments that are derogatory to woman, a powerful voting block who decide elections, might just block his chances of becoming the next occupant of the White House.

Women’s Campaign Issues

One day before the politically damaging Washington Post article appeared detailing Trump’s lewd comments in a leaked video, AARP, the nation’s largest aging advocacy group, released survey findings highlighting issues of importance to women voters ages 50 to 69 in key battleground states.

“Older women voters – particularly women of the Boomer generation — could help decide the 2016 presidential election,” said AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond. “Yet many of their real concerns are being ignored and their questions overlooked in a largely issueless campaign. The candidates still have an opportunity to talk to these women about the issues that matter to them.”

The 27 page report, Women Voters Ages 50 +: Economic Anxieties, Social Security, and the 2016 Election, says that heading into this year’s presidential election, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has a whopping 15 point lead (48 percent) over the GOP’s standard bearer Donald Trump (33 percent) among woman over age 50. The findings also indicate that older woman favor Democrats running for Congress by a narrower margin (47 percent are inclined to vote for a Democrat while 36 percent inclined to vote for a Republican).

AARP’s survey results noted that majority of woman age 50 and over believe that Clinton will do a better job than Trump in addressing family caregiving (Clinton, 57 percent; Trump, 27 percent), education (56 percent; 31 percent), environment (55 percent; 29 percent) and health (53 percent; 35 percent). The Democratic presidential candidate is also perceived by older woman as having a slight advantage over Trump in controlling government spending and controlling the budget deficit (44 percent; 43 percent).

“It’s the Economy Stupid”
Plus Retirement Issues

As to the economy, the majority of the older woman respondents across these 15 battle ground states worry about pocketbook issues such as prices rising faster than their income (61 percent) and having to pay too much in taxes (54 percent. Four in ten (41%) worry about having prescription drug expenses they cannot afford. Women with lower household incomes are especially likely to worry about these pocketbook issues.

Also, the AARP survey found that many women also worry about retirement security, including their ability to care for themselves as they age (45 percent), not having financial security in retirement (41 percent), and whether Social Security will be there when they retire (38 percent). These retirement-related issues are of particular concern to women with lower household incomes.

Additionally, most women (53 percent) say that the nearly 25 percent cut in Social Security benefits that would result from not addressing the solvency of Social Security would impact them, including 32 percent who say it would impact them “a lot.”

Fixing Social Security is a key issue to older woman voters. The AARP survey noted that the vast majority of women voters ages 50+ (72 percent) say that the next president and Congress should address Social Security immediately.

Most women (67 percent) also favor giving a caregiver credit in calculating Social Security benefits to people who take time off from work to care for loved ones, says the report.

Social Security is flying under the radar screen of the voter. The survey findings noted that few women say that they have heard about the candidates’ plans for Social Security. About one in three (34 percent) say they have seen or heard anything from Clinton, and even fewer (20 percent) say that they have seen or heard anything from Trump.

The AARP survey found that over 54 percent of the respondents are currently, or have been, a family caregiver providing unpaid care to an adult loved one. More than eight in ten (85 percent) women voter’s ages 50+ think it is important for the presidential candidates to talk about how they would support family caregivers who provide unpaid care to aging parents or spouses or other adult family members.

Finally, four in ten (41 percent) women are not confident that they will be able to cover the cost of care for an aging or elderly parent, spouse, or other family member.

Women: A Powerful Voting Block

According to the Center for American Women in Politics, “In recent elections voter turnout rates for women have equaled or exceeded voter turnout rates for men. Women, who constitute more than half of the population, have cast between four to seven million more votes than men in recent elections.“

Only weeks will tell if embattled Trump can overcome the political backlash generated from his locker room banter degrading woman, political insiders predicting that the gender vote gap might just historically widen.

AARP’s survey findings provide sound advice to Clinton and Trump and congressional candidates who are scrambling for last minute votes, especially from married women, younger millennials and women living in the nation’s suburbs. The women’s voting block might just surely tilt the election to a candidate in many legislative districts.

Bush’s “just guns, no butter” policy hurts senior programs

Published in the Pawtucket Times on March 31, 2003

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Guns and Butter” policy is not in fashion today.

In a recent Washington Aging Report, radio commentator Bill Benson predicted future federal funding of program and services for seniors will take a back seat to President Bush’s worldwide fight against tourism, the high-tech war against Iraq and tax breaks for the upper income Americans.

In his Marh 24 commentary, Benson, a former assistant secretary with the U.S. Administration on Aging and now a principal at Health Benefits ABC – sees tough times ahead for the federal funding of programs and services, especially the creation of a meaningful Medicare pharmaceutical assistance program.

“Guns and Butter” was coined nearly 40 years ago, describing President Lyndon B. Johnson’s two-front war. Back then, a large infusion of federal dollars allowed the Democratic president to fight a war abroad – in Vietnam – along with a war on the domestic front, against poverty and social ills, especially those facing the elderly.

“By the end of 1965, with Vietnam escalating, we had the Medicare program and the Older Americans Act,” noted Benson, adding Medicaid was also created at this time to help millions of low-income older people afford the cost of nursing home care.

Benson’s radio commentary charged the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are fully committed to funding the “guns” but not “butter” policy initiatives.

“It would be one thing if the commitment to guns over butter was for the president while we topple Saddam and occupy Iraq, and combat terrorism everywhere. “Instead, it looks like the Bush administration is committed to making butter a scarcer commodity for years to come,” said Benson.

According to Benson’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year suggests it won’t be both “guns and butter,” especially in light of the president’s efforts to pursue large tax cuts for upper-income Americans.

What about the spending for guns?

According to the Washington Post, Bush’s proposal for the fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, calls for defense spending that is 16 percent more than the combined total of all other discretionary spending excluding what he would spend on homeland security.

And that figure does not take into account the cost of the war in Iraq, nor expenditures to combat terrorism, Benson says.

Meanwhile, Benson said the Washington Post noted secretary of defense Donald Rumford has proposed a $20 billion increase for defense for each of the next six years, would follow what have been six straight years of real increases in defense spending. The result by 2010 would be annual spending for defense of more than half a trillion dollars.

Combine increased defense with the cost of the Iraq war.

Benson noted the White House estimated the cost for Iraq and related matters will be nearly $75 billion over the next six months.

Benson said that by 2011, the first baby boomer s will turn age 65, and will begin placing huge demands up on Medicare, Social Security and other services for the elderly.

“President Bush’s FY 2004 budget calls for $ 400 billion spread over 10 years for a prescription drug plan for senior,” said Benson.

On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare beneficiaries will in fact spend more than $1.8 trillion over the same 10 years for prescription drugs.

That means, said Benson, the president’s plan would cover only a bit more than 20 percent of wat seniors will actually spend. And that is if the $ 400 billion actually goes for drug coverage when there will be many other demands for additional Medicare dollars.

Bush also purposes to cut funding for the Older Americans Act – a federal program that supports such services as Meals on Wheels, transportation for the elderly and ombudsmen to investigate problems in nursing homes -by $24 billion, Benson said.

With a worldwide war on  terrorism combined with the ongoing war in Iraq, the debate regarding “guns and butter” spending must begin in earnest.

Hard choices must be made in times of war, but seniors must continue to press both the Bush administration and Congress for adequate federal funding to create a meaningful Medicare pharmaceutical assistance program, and to shore up the ailing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.

In this new era of huge defense spending, the Bush administration and Congress will have to make very painful choices in allocating its limited discretionary funds to support a wide variety of domestic policy initiatives.

Only an intense lobby of aging advocates and seniors will keep programs and services benefiting the nation’s elderly on the radar screens of federal officials and lawmakers.