Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1

I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

OCR

The original documents are located in Box D107, folder "Senior Citizens" of the Gerald R.
Ford Congressional Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the
United States of America her copyrights in all of her husband's unpublished writings in National
Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official
duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or
organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed
in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
le:Slder Atizens
Jam Inn Mudge
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
1625 EYE STREET NORTHWEST
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NAtional 8-6800
RAY C. BLISS
CHAIRMAN
November 8, 1965
material
F/Ther here for some or speeches
The Honorable
in
Gerald R. Ford
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jerry:
In looking forward to the Republican Campaign of 1966,
I am increasingly impressed with the need for strengthening
our position with the older Americans -- the "over-65"
voters -- by making a special attempt to reach them with
our case.
As a possible aid to you in this important task, I am
enclosing a copy of a basic speech which was prepared
cooperatively by our Public Relations staff and our Senior
Citizens Division, at the request of Senator Gordon Allott.
You are free to use any material contained in paraphrased
form, bearing in mind that the material as written, will be
delivered by Senator Allott in the near future.
I would be grateful for your reactions to the material and
any suggestions you may care to offer.
With every good wish, I am
Sincerely yours,
R
Ray C. Bliss
21
A REAL HELP PROGRAM FOR OLDER CITIZENS
My purpose in speaking to you is to discuss the problems and needs of
our older citizens, and the role of the Federal Government in dealing with this
entire question. I am going to try to state clearly and factually what is going on in
this area now, and my position on some of the things that have happened. I shall
attempt to point out certain difficulties that I think are bound to arise. I shall
undertake to outline what I believe the Federal Government should do to help our
older citizens, not merely to meet their problems and needs, but to maintain their
morale, their position and their traditional independence and integrity as citizens
of our Republic.
The Elderly Increase in Numbers
The present approach to this whole question is complicated by an unusual
development, and I think it is fair to say that this development has influenced the
answers offered to the problems and needs of older persons.
First, our older citizens are growing:
in numbers
--and as a proportion of the total voting population.
It is estimated that by November, 1966, there will be 19 million
Americans 65 years of age and older, and that they will cast more than 20 per cent
of the vote in national, State and local elections. They will not constitute 20 per cent
of the registered voters, of course, but apparently more of them vote than is the
case with younger citizens, an evidence of deep interest in their citizenship
responsibilities.
-2-
Thus if any substantial number of them vote the same way, they are
capable of deciding many election contests. And because this is true, it is perhaps
no coincidence that our older citizens are objects of growing political interest.
Doubtless many of our older citizens are already beginning to look on this
political interest as they look on prospective heirs who are wondering what
Uncle Joe or Aunt Ellen will leave in their wills. In other words, how much of this
political interest is interest in them, and how much is self-interest.
Now I point out all this as background because there are a couple of facts
that I think should be brought out. And in referring to these facts, I am not
necessarily trying to impeach anybody. My essential purpose is to make sure that
certain contemporary developments are clearly understood.
Effort to Organize Older Citizens
The basic fact is that a calculated and systematic effort is under way to
organize our older citizens into a voting bloc, and by an unusual coincidence, into
a voting bloc willing to:
--support Democratic candidates for national office
--and through organized effort, Democratic legislative proposals
presented to Congress.
Now I am not saying that there is anything wrong with an attempt to organize
older citizens or other groups into a voting bloc or blocs, so long as the objects
of this wooing process understand what kind of game is being played and are entirely
free to accept or reject the wooers, without interference from questionable influences.
However, I think it is pertinent to point to the present situation because of
two elements involved in it:
-3-
-- The contemporary drive to organize our older citizens into a
voting bloc has influenced heretofore, and doubtless will in the future, the programs
offered as answers to the problems and needs of the elderly.
There is a reasonable question as to the effect of some of these
programs on the morale, the position in the community, and the independence and
integrity of many of our older citizens.
Now, to get down to certain specifics:
The campaign to bring older citizens together into a voting bloc had its
inception in the Presidential campaign of 1960, when a group known as Senior
Citizens for Kennedy-Johnson was organized under the Chairmanship of
Democratic Congressman Aime J. Forand of Rhode Island.
No criticism here. This is perfectly valid political activity. But let's
follow through and see what has happened since that time.
Senior Citizens for Kennedy-Johnson was dissolved in the winter of 1961,
and in August of that year the National Council of Senior Citizens for Health Care
through Social Security was formed under the Chairmanship of Mr. Forand, now
a former Congressman, and opened an office in Washington.
Mr. Forand had attracted considerable attention as the foremost
sponsor of legislation providing for a hospital program for elderly persons under
the Social Security System.
National Council of Senior Citizens
Some months after its organization, the National Council of Senior Citizens
for Health Care through Social Security shortened its name to National Council of
Senior Citizens, Inc., and changed its structure to permit the establishment of a
large national body.
-4-
The group joined with the Democratic Administration in Washington,
and with a number of union leaders, in campaigning for and jamming through Congress
the so-called "Medicare" plan incorporated in the 1965 Social Security Act.
The organization, which calls itself a "pressure group, " sometime ago
commemorated the fourth anniversary of its existence. Mr. Forand has been
succeeded as President by John W. Edelman, a well-known and able union official
who formerly was legislative representative in Washington of the Textile Workers'
Union.
In a news release on the occasion of its fourth anniversary, the National
Council reported that 2, 000 older people's clubs had affiliated with it, and that
new clubs were joining up at the rate of about 20 a month. It also claimed the
affiliation of about 70 Statewide and area councils with a combined membership of
some two million persons.
If the leaders of the National Council wish to ally themselves with the
Democratic Party, it is, of course, their privilege to do so. Nevertheless, it should
be understood that, at this point in its development, the National Council is committed
to the Democratic cause, and to the Democratic Administration in Washington and its
policies.
Admittedly, it is becoming a formidable front for organizing the nation's
older citizens into a bloc committed to the support of Democrats for national office
and Democratic legislation before Congress.
While the National Council insists that it is not a "rubber stamp" for
Johnson Administration "Great Society" plans and other measures, the record thus
far shows that it has supported a great many Administration proposals, some of which
could hardly be classed as of particular interest to older citizens.
-5-
Council Supports Repeal of 14(b)
Administration legislative proposals which the National Council has
identified itself as supporting include repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley
Act. As is generally known, repeal of this provision of law would nullify the
"right-to-work" laws in effect in 19 states and prepare the way for compulsory
union membership throughout the Nation. Even with the advantage of a top-heavy
Democratic majority, the Administration failed to force through the Senate a bill
to repeal Section 14(b) at the 1965 session. Clearly, repeal of this provision would
accord with the ambitions of union leaders who control the National Council. I must
confess, however, that I am at a loss to see how it would help the overwhelming
majority of the Nation's older citizens. Valid questions certainly may be raised as to
whether it would help them find employment, or in any way increase their incomes.
A Gift of $40,000
Aside from supporting Administration legislative proposals, the National
Council is backing a variety of plans for more welfare and other benefits for older
persons, including a more elaborate "Medicare" system.
Many of our older citizens, however, may be interested in the two-sided
operation carried on by the organization:
--organizing older citizens into Democratic voting groups throughout
the Nation
--and actively supporting before Congress specific legislative proposals
sponsored by the Democratic Administration.
-6-
Thus older citizens who join up with groups actively supporting the
National Council and its policies may find that they are not merely voters. They
may be indirectly supporting legislation about which they perhaps are not clearly
informed or even aware.
In consideration for its services, the Democratic National Committee
made a contribution of $40,000 to the National Council during the 1964 Presidential
campaign. Leaders of the organization have attended many bill-signing ceremonies
on invitation of President Johnson.
A Bureaucracy to Exploit the Elderly
But there is another chapter to this story, and that involves the young and
growing bureaucracy that concerns itself with the problems and needs of older
people.
One of the bills that the National Council sponsored, according to its
own statement, was the Older Americans Act, which became law July 14, 1965.
This law created a new Administration on Aging, which the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare says will become one of its major operations. The Department
explains that the functions of this new agency will include the following:
The handling of federal grants to the States to help them establish and expand
programs and services for older persons, and grants to public and non-profit private
agencies for research and various other activities. The Act authorized the appropriation
of $17.5 million to get these projects started in the 1966 and 1967 fiscal years,
and whatever sums Congress might see fit to allow to carry them on the following
three fiscal years. But, of course, these sums would be only a little seed money
which eventually could produce a forest.
-7-
But here are other functions of the new agency:
Serving as a clearing-house for information related to the problems
of older persons.
--Aiding the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare in matters pertaining to these problems.
Providing for research and demonstration projects related to the
elderly.
-Giving technical assistance to, and consulting with, the States
and communities concerning the problems of the aged.
Preparing, publishing and distributing literature dealing with the
welfare of older persons.
Gathering statistics in this field.
Stimulating more effective use of existing resources and available
services for helping older persons.
Therefore, the new agency has just about taken over the whole job of
dealing with our older citizens, and of course it has only just started. If it is a
major operation already, it is sure to expand greatly in the years ahead, in the
event the present trends in government continue.
If this agency has its way, federal programs for the elderly are practically
sure to become one of the most elaborate, costly and bureaucrat-dominated
activities in our country. These programs are naturals for bureaucratic empire-
builders.
Already the high dreams are expanding. In a speech some time ago,
Vice President Hubert Humphrey said that the Administration plans to increase the
number of community centers for the elderly from 700 in 1965 to 7,500 by 1970.
He said this would require recruitment of 30, 000 more social workers and others
to plan and operate these centers.
-8-
Teen-Agers would Adopt Elderly as Grandparents
Meanwhile, a bewildering variety of proposals are being developed
for helping older people. In 1964, the Democratic majority of the Special Senate
Committee on Aging drew up a list of 15 recommendations for action, including
extensive plans in the areas of housing, food, recreation and education for older
persons.
The fifteenth recommendation of the Democratic majority was rather
unusual. It reads as follows:
"The committee recommends that State and local aging commissions,
friendly visitor services and other organizations which deal with senior citizens
who are lonely and isolated seek to interest high school students and other young
people in 'adopting grandparents'. "
Now, I don't know how the older people are going to react to this idea,
but I suspect that, if any adopting is to be done, they would prefer to choose their
adopted grandchildren instead of having youngsters look over and choose or reject
them.
This proposal has at least one virtue. It probably would not cost a lot
of money except the amount necessary to pay the salaries of those who would try
to carry out "Operation Grandparent."
But the prevailing trend of these proposals is clear. It divides into
two parts:
Cost is no consideration; here the sky is the limit.
The nation's older citizens must be separated from the rest of the
community and given special aids and services; they must be treated as if they were
incapable of making decisions for themselves; in effect, they are to become wards
of a super-government.
-9-
Selling Programs by Brainwashing
This entire effort is being promoted through a brainwashing operation
which has two purposes: To sell the programs to our older citizens, and to crush
all opposition or criticism. This brainwashing operation makes much use of names
and slogans that always paint the programs in a highly attractive and alluring
light, and references and allusions that portray the opposition as specters from
the past.
We have been told often that power feeds upon power, and we have here,
I think, a picture of it. A troika consisting of the Democratic Administration in
Washington, a private organization serving as one of its political arms, and a
bureaucracy created by the joint efforts of both, are holding out allurements
to our older citizens.
The professed purpose is to take care of the problems and needs of
older people.
But I think it is generally acknowledged that the actual purpose is to
capture their lasting loyalty and their support.
Power grown enormously great is greedy for still more power.
All to be Paid out of Taxes
The benevolences extended to our older citizens, of course, are payable
out of taxpayers' funds; that is, unless the Democratic Administration chooses
to borrow the money and thus pour more fuel on the inflationary forces that perhaps
have hurt elderly persons more than any other group.
-10-
In my judgment, it is unfortunate that our older citizens have become
the targets of political power-seekers. That they have problems and needs that
deserve the attention of the Federal Government, as well as State and local
governments, is beyond question. They deserve something better than an effort
to exploit them. In fact, they deserve programs that represent the best answers
to their difficulties, and not politically-oriented answers. And these answers should
accord with their dignity, their place in the community, and their traditional
independence as citizens.
The Medicare Program
Now I want to turn my attention to the Medicare Program. Actually,
Medicare as it now stands is a slogan of the Madison Avenue type more than a
program. But in an era of government by slogans rather than by realistic
measures, it gains acceptance as a program.
I voted against this plan for one primary reason:
I did not consider it the best answer to the problem of providing health
care to our older citizens.
So far as I am aware, everybody acknowledges the existence of this
problem, and there is practically a universal desire to develop good and effective
answers to it. On this point, no differences exist between Republicans and
Democrats, or among other responsible and interested groups in America. The
differences are entirely over what answers should be offered. And that certainly
is a proper subject for reasonable consideration and debate.
Healthy debate over differences of view has been a tradition in our
country since it was founded 173 years ago, and this has been one of the major
reasons for its progress.
-11-
This business of having something jammed down your throat, regardless
of whether you think it is good, is alien to that tradition, and if it becomes the
established rule in our country, its progress will be at an end.
The Medicare plan was jammed down the throats of all those who
believed that a better answer to the problem could be provided. An effort was
even made to force the House-approved version of the plan through the Senate
without improvements or corrections of any kind. This effort did not succeed.
But the fact that it was tried speaks more eloquently than words could do as to
the attitude and tactics of the present Democratic Administration in Washington.
Incidentally, it is now estimated that about 12, 000 new Federal jobs
will be created to carry out the Medicare program. This, of course, is of
considerable importance to the political power-builder. While "jobs for Democrats"
have little bearing on the welfare of our older citizens, they are a source of
political power.
An Alternative Program
In place of the Medicare plan, I favored a proposal under which federal
grants would have been made to the States to help persons 65 and older pay the
cost of health insurance if they could not pay it otherwise. The insurance
contemplated was of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield types.
Under this plan, the federal and state governments would pay the entire
cost of insurance for elderly persons whose incomes fall below limits set by
the State government.
For those with incomes between a stated minimum and a maximum figure,
the federal-state contribution would pay part of the cost of the insurance on a sliding
scale based on income. The lower the income, of course, the greater the portion of
insurance cost paid out of government funds.
-12-
Persons with incomes above the maximum figure would receive no
payment from government funds. However, they would receive an income tax
deduction for what they paid out for health insurance.
Advantages of Alternative Plan
Such an approach seemed to me to have a number of advantages:
--It would provide, particularly for lower income groups, a much broader
range of protection against health care costs than the Medicare plan offered by
the Johnson Administration. It would include doctors' bills, surgeons' charges,
and drugs outside the hospital, none of which would be covered by the Medicare
plan proposed by the Administration. It would also include hospital and nursing
home charges, which are covered by the Medicare plan under specific conditions
and stated limits.
-- The portion of the cost borne by the Federal Government would be paid
out of general revenues, thereby avoiding an extra tax on salaries and wages,
with no exemptions or deductions of any kind, as is provided by the Medicare plan.
-- The plan would not be saddled on the Social Security System, thereby
imposing on the system a burden which will jeopardize its solvency in the years ahead.
--It would cost less than Medicare, because it would not provide, as
Medicare does, for hospital and nursing home care for well-to-do and wealthy
persons, paid for out of taxes on a worker's pay.
At the same time, it would not require a "pauper's oath" to qualify for
its benefits, which is one of the complaints against the Kerr-Mills program. A
simple statement of income is all that would be needed to establish eligibility for
government payment of insurance costs, or assistance in meeting these costs.
-13-
--It would utilize existing facilities, including the extensive private
insurance system developed in the United States, instead of creating a costly new
bureaucracy, with its built-in federal interference with the practice of medicine
and the administration of hospitals and nursing homes.
Medicare is Law
However, the Medicare plan is now the law of the land, and it is the
responsibility of all of us to try to make it work, with as little dislocation and
difficulty as possible. This will take a bit of doing, because the plan has decided
limitations.
Let us look for a moment at what Medicare will do, and at what it will
not do. I am talking now about the Medicare plan which is to be financed for the
greater part by the new tax on wages and salaries provided for in the 1965 Social
Security Act. This is the plan that was steamrollered through Congress by the
Johnson Administration and its allied power blocs.
The plan covers persons 65 and over, regardless of their income, their
ability to provide their own medical care, or whether they are drawing Social
Security benefits or are even entitled to such benefits. For persons not entitled
to such benefits, the costs of Medicare will be paid for out of general Treasury
revenues, rather than out of payroll tax funds.
What Medicare Does
The plan provides that:
Beginning July 1, 1966, an elderly person shall be entitled to up to 60 days
of hospital care for a spell of sickness, provided he pays the first $40 of the hospital
costs. If he is still sick after 60 days, he can receive an additional 30 days of
hospital care, but he must pay $10 a day for every day he spends in the hospital
-14-
after 60 days. After he uses up the extra 30 days, he is on his own and will have
to pay the entire bill himself.
--Hospital care will be provided in semi-private rooms containing two
to four beds, according to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Drugs necessary for use while the patient is in the hospital will be provided.
--After a person has been in the hospital for at least three days, he may
be transferred to a nursing home or to a convalescent section of the hospital, if a
physician certifies that the additional care is necessary. If this occurs, he may
receive up to 20 days of additional care in semi-private accommodations without
charge, and if necessary an additional 80 days of care, provided he pays $5 a
day for every day he stays in excess of 20 days. Incidentally, this feature of
the new law does not go into effect until January 1, 1967. Therefore, there is a
question as to what happens to a person who enters a hopsital in the summer of 1966,
and who needs to be transferred to a nursing home or a convalescent section of
the hospital after his hospital stay is completed.
--Following release from a hospital, or from a nursing home or hospital
convalescent section, the patient will be entitled to 100 home-health visits by nurses
or other health workers, who will provide certain services which they are trained
to give, including such things as speech therapy, if required.
-After the patient has paid the first $20 of the cost of outpatient
diagnostic tests in a hospital, the Government will pick up the tab for 80 per cent
of the costs of the tests for each 20-day period of testing.
This in essence is what the Medicare plan will do, as it now stands.
-15-
What Medicare Does NOT Do
As previously mentioned, the plan does not pay for doctors' bills or
surgeons' charges, or for drugs outside the hospital.
In addition, it does not cover the charges of radiologists,
anesthesiologists, pathologists or psychiatrists.
A private room will be paid for only if the patient's condition requires
him to be isolated, for example, because of a contagious disease. If he wants a
private room for comfort, he must pay the extra charge over the beyond the cost
of a semi-private room.
If he wants a television set in the room, he will have to pay for the rental.
If he needs a blood transfusion, he will be charged for the first three pints
given him unless he can arrange with donors to replace the blood.
These conditions surrounding the Medicare plan have been spelled out
by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. There are others. But they
give an idea of the "red tape" involving the plan. The red tape will be multiplied
as regulations are issued governing the admission of persons to hospitals, the
transfer of persons to nursing homes or convalescent quarters, and the other
benefit provisions.
The Supplementary Insurance Plan
The 1965 Social Security Act contains a supplement to the Medicare
plan which establishes a modified form of medical insurance on a voluntary basis.
This supplementary arrangement, described by the law as "Plan B," provides for
payment of 80 per cent of the cost of the following services after the patient puts
up the first $50 of cost in any calendar year:
-16-
Doctors' bills and surgeons' charges, and the fees of radiologists,
anesthesiologists, pathologists and psychiatrists.
--Home health services up to 100 visits a year without a requirement
of prior hospitalization.
--A variety of other medical and health services, including diagnostic
tests; surgical dressings, splints, casts and the like; rental of medical equipment,
such as oxygen tents and iron lungs; prosthetic devices which replace all or part
of an internal body organ; braces and artificial legs, arms and eyes, and ambulance
services within limitations.
This plan is open to persons 65 and over if they sign up for it, and pay
a premium of $3 per month. The Federal Government pays an equal amount.
Like the Medicare plan, this plan goes into effect July 1, 1966. However, to
participate, a person should sign up well in advance.
The medical insurance plan was not a part of the Medicare plan as
proposed by the Johnson Administration. However, it was accepted by the
Administration and incorporated in the 1965 Social Security Act after Republicans
in the House of Representatives proposed a comprehensive alternative to the
Medicare plan intended to take care of doctors' bills and surgeons' fees as well as
hospital and nursing home costs. Apparently, the Administration began to realize
some of the weaknesses in the Medicare plan.
Thus the one plan provided for in the Social Security Act that covers
doctors' bills and surgeons' fees was the outgrowth of a Republican proposal.
-17-
Medicare was Oversold
Obviously, the Administration and other advocates of Medicare oversold
it in their eagerness to jam it through Congress. There is bound to be confusion
as older people undertake to find out what they can do, and what they cannot do under
it, and what it will pay for and what they must pay for.
Problems in Medicare
In order to make Medicare work, there are certain problems that must
be anticipated and dealt with.
One problem almost sure to be encountered is a tendency toward over-
utilization of facilities on the part of many persons who may be misled to believe
that they are suddenly eligible for free Government-paid hospital care. Over-
utilization of facilities will have an important bearing on the cost of the Medicare
plan, and on the quality of medical care.
The tendency toward over-utilization was revealed by our experience
in Colorado after the State established its old-age pension medical plan in 1957.
The cost in a relatively short time exceeded expectations, and I suspect that we
have not begun to discover yet what Medicare is going to cost. A major reason is
that we do not know to what extent facilities will be utilized.
About the time that the 1965 Social Security Act became law, the United
States News and World Report carried an article on Medicare in which it said:
"Medical care in this country is headed for a real crisis
"Investigation shows that the medical machinery of this nation is not
now geared to take care of the increased demand for medical care that seems
sure to follow.
-18-
"Shortages of many kinds will be encountered. The shortages will
be acute in the supply of nurses and nursing homes. Here will be the worst crisis.
"Hospitals will be taxed to capacity -- and beyond, in many localities
in the nation.
"Large areas and many communities will be short of physicians and
surgeons. More dieticians, physical therapists, technologists and medical workers
of many other kinds will be needed.
"As a result, medical care for all persons can be expected to suffer -- at
least temporarily."
Dr. John H. Knowles, General Director of the Massachusetts General
Hospital in Boston, was quoted by the article as follows:
"When a patient comes to our hospital for treatment under this federal
program, we've got to find out if he is really eligible. Is he actually 65 or older?
Where has he been treated before? Why is he here? Has he already used up his
eligibility at a nursing home and is he coming back to a hospital to get renewal of
his nursing-home privileges, and so forth?
"These are things the hospital is going to have to assume responsibility
for. It means we're going to have to hire more people in the administration of the
hospital to carry out the rules and regulations of 'Big Brother' -- the federal
bureaucracy. It will mean the addition of more social workers. We're going to
have to expand the accounting department. All this is going to increase the cost
of medical care."
Whether or not these predictions come true remains to be seen. But,
since Medicare was oversold to the public, I think we should begin to deal with the
problem of possible over-utilization of facilities, and the accompanying burden that
will be imposed on medical personnel.
-19-
The Problem of Hospital Facilities
In order to implement the Medicare program, at least in some degree,
I proposed when the program became law that the funds for hospital construction
under the Hill-Burton Act be increased by $10 million.
At that time, I pointed out that Congress, having enacted the Medicare
plan, had a responsibility to deal with the problems which it would create, and
that one of these problems would be hospital facilities, which were already jammed
and crowded in many places and entirely incapable of handling the additional
burdens which the plan would impose.
No action was taken at the 1965 session of Congress to increase hospital
construction funds to anticipate the added demands resulting from Medicare.
However, one of the Administration leaders, Senator Lister Hill of Alabama,
acknowledged that the problem existed, and that action would have to be taken to
deal with it.
First Step toward Socialized Medicine
What the future course of Medicare will be is highly uncertain. It is a
first step toward the establishment in the United States of a socialized medical
system such as that in England and some other countries. Its chief sponsors
long have been sympathetic to government-controlled medicine, and they look upon
Medicare as a beginning. They have announced their determination to expand it in
gradual stages in future years.
The cost of the plan as it stands is practically certain to be much greater
than the original predictions. If it is expanded, the cost will rise proportionately.
-20-
A long-range problem created by the Medicare plan is the effect
it will have on the Social Security System. One of the primary reasons why I
opposed the plan is that it adds an uncertain and increasing burden to
Social Security.
I have been a consistent supporter of the Social Security System, and
have always voted for measures which would increase Social Security benefits.
Effect of Inflation on Elderly
As is generally known, I think, increases in benefits have been voted
periodically to keep pace with inflation, which has boosted prices which consumers
pay and lowered the value of the dollar. But the increase in benefits voted by
Congress have not kept pace with inflation for many years.
For example, the 1965 Social Security Act provided for a general increase
in Social Security benefits of seven per cent. This was the first general increase
since 1958. But the increase in the cost of living, according to the consumer price
index issued by the Department of Labor, has been nearer 10 per cent in that
seven-year period.
Thus, the average person receiving Social Security benefits has been
losing ground in the race against inflation.
In fact, the average Social Security benefit, even after the 1965 increase,
will not buy as much as the average benefit paid in 1954.
Here we have a basic clue to a great deal of the financial difficulties which
our older citizens are experiencing. Inflation, the Great Swindler, particularly of
people living on fixed incomes, is steadily eating away at the value of their dollars.
Life insurance declines in value. Annuities decline in value. All due to inflation.
And inflation is the direct result of the spending policies of the Federal Government,
the deficit-financing that year after year boosts the public debt to a new record figure.
-21-
This in general is the benefit side of the picture. Let us look at the
cost side.
Social Security Taxes Rise
The 1965 Social Security Act provides for a big jump in the Social
Security payroll tax. This increase takes two forms: A boost in rates, and an
advance in the total yearly wages or salaries subject to the tax. A substantial
part of the increase is intended to pay the cost of Medicare for persons either
drawing Social Security benefits, or eligible for benefits.
The tax rate will be advanced, beginning in 1966 and continuing gradually
until 1987, in that year, the rate will be 5.65 per cent on the taxable portion of the
wages or salaries of each worker, and his employer will have to pay the same rate
and amount. Meanwhile, the taxable portion of wages and salaries is raised from
$4,800 a year to $6,600 a year, beginning in 1966.
Thus, we are to have a total tax of 11.3 per cent on the first $6,600
earned by each worker every year.
Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff, Democrat of Connecticut, told a
Congressional Committee when he was Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
in the Kennedy Administration, that the payroll tax should not be raised above 10 per cent.
He regarded this figure as the maximum for safety, because he was afraid that
resistance would develop against the tax if it were boosted above this level.
But all thought of a "danger point" in the tax burden has now been
abandoned.
-22-
Some elderly persons who have paid little, or nothing, in the way of
Social Security taxes will receive a break, of course, under the Medicare plan.
But it should be remembered that what these people have not paid will have to
be borne by those now in the work force and paying taxes, and those who will
be entering the work force.
There is nothing really free here. Somebody is going to have to pay the
bill.
The worker who earned $6,600 in 1965 paid $174.00 in Social Security
tax, and his employer matched that amount. This worker will have to pay $277.20
in 1966. He will have to pay $372.90 in 1987, unless the tax is raised to a still
higher level, as very likely will happen.
In some cases, the Social Security tax will be a great deal higher than
the federal income tax.
For example, a married couple with two children and an income of
$3,600 a year now pays $88 a year in federal income tax. Under the 1965 Social
Security Act, he will pay $151.20 in Social Security tax in 1966, and more as the
tax increases automatically in later years. Eventually, his Social Security tax
will reach $203.40 a year on an annual income of $3,600.
The old principle that a man should be taxed according to his ability
to pay has disappeared entirely here.
High Taxes for Young People
Take the case of a young man of 23 entering the work force for the first
time in 1966. Let us assume that he earns $6,600 or more a year until he retires
at the age of 65, and of course many of them actually will do that, particularly
the college graduates.
-23-
Under the Social Security taxes now established, he will pay a total
of $15,054.60 in payroll tax during his working career. His employer will pay
an equal amount. Thus the total tax on his pay during his working career will
be $30,109.20.
This figure will be much higher if interest at an annual rate of, say,
four per cent is included. In fact, Robert J. Myers, the Chief Actuary of the
Social Security Administration, has said that if interest at this rate is figured in,
the contributions of a new entrant into Social Security and his employer will be well
in excess of $80,000, provided his earnings are at the maximum level and he
remains covered for 45 years.
From these figures, we may see just where our efforts to give somebody
something free have led us. For these new entrants, there is not going to be
anything free, or even partially free. For them, the equalization process has
already begun.
Now, there is no question that substantial taxes will have to be paid to
support the Social Security System in coming years, without the added burden of
Medicare. Actually, there are certain improvements that should be made in the
Social Security benefit system, as I intend to point out later. These improvements
may well necessitate some increase in the tax.
Important to keep Social Security Solvent
What is necessary in the way of taxes we should embrace gladly,
because it is highly important that Social Security be kept solvent and operative.
However, we should be aware of the direction in which the pell-mell
advocates of government-dominated medicine are leading us. And that direction
raises serious questions about the continuing solvency of Social Security.
-24-
Let's look at a few financial facts.
The Social Security Old Age Trust Fund contains at the present time
about $20 billion, and the Disability Benefits Trust Fund about $2 billion.
While these are enormous sums, it must be remembered that
expenditures by the old age fund in the current 1966 fiscal year are expected to
total $18.6 billion, and by the disability fund $1.7 billion. Thus these funds
only have enough money to keep them going a little more than a year.
This shows that the Social Security System is now operating pretty much
on a hand-to-mouth or pay-as-you-go basis. If a life insurance company operated
that way, it would be violating the law. A life insurance company is required
to keep sufficient funds on hand so that, if its operations are terminated, it will
be able to pay off all the accrued liabilities.
Social Security now Billions in the red
On January 1, 1962, the Social Security trust funds had commitments
to pay $625 billion in old age and disability benefits to persons eligible for benefits
at that time.
It was estimated at the time that the funds would collect from workers
then on the rolls and their employers $282 billion before all these workers retired.
In addition, the funds had, as now, about $22 billion on hand.
This was the Social Security balance sheet, therefore, at that time:
$625 billion owed; $304 billion expected in taxes and in money on hand; deficit,
$321 billion, a figure actually greater than the public debt.
How can this deficit be made up, you may ask. In only one of two ways,
by newcomers to the rolls and their employers paying in more than the newcomers
will receive in benefits, or by diverting mo ney from the general fund of the Treasury.
-25-
And this diversion could amount to a formidable additional burden on the taxpayer.
You may also ask how large the deficit has grown as a result of the
passage of the 1965 law. No one knows as of this time, because the figure has
not been calculated. But it is sure to be much greater.
Eventually, it may be discovered that a mistake was made when
Medicare was saddled on the Social Security System.
There is no question that continuing attention must be given by government
to the problems and needs of our older citizens.
An effort must be made to come up with the best answers, and not
just political answers.
The enactment of the Medicare plan has not solved the problem of
health care for older people, as I have already indicated and as will become amply
apparent later. It will be necessary to review this problem from time to time.
Other plans for action will be coming along in a wide range of fields.
Help for the Elderly that will help
I would like to indicate my reaction to the entire problem, and to point
to some of the things that I think should be done.
The measures that should be taken, in my judgment, should be directed
toward maintaining the dignity, the independence, and the individual responsibility
of our older citizens instead of making them dependent on a super-government
directed from Washington.
Obviously, a basic problem of older people is inadequate incomes. There
are certain things that government can do to improve the income position of the
elderly. If these things are done, there will be less for special programs to meet
specific needs.
-26-
Curb Inflation
No greater help could be extended to older people than to apply brakes
to the inflation that ha S reduced the purchasing power of the dollars they have.
This could be done by a better management of government, and a curb on
extravagant spending policies that have produced continued deficit-financing.
But there are other things that could be done.
Social Security benefits should be increased to compensate for the cost-
of-living increase that have occurred in recent years. This would give older
people a better chance to take care of their own wants in their own way.
The Social Security System should be made more flexible. At present,
if a person over 65 keeps on working and does not draw Social Security benefits,
he gets nothing for saving the Government money. At the same time, he continues
to pay the Social Security payroll tax. This is manifestly unfair. He should receive
an actuarily sound increase in benefits for each year after 65 that he fails to
draw benefits.
Allow an Older Person to Earn More
There should be a further increase in the amount an older person can
earn without losing his Social Security benefits. The 1965 Social Security Act
did something in this direction, but not enough. What seems a more equitable
plan is to allow a person to receive up to a stated sum, say $3,600 a year, in
combined benefits and earnings before losing any part of his benefits.
The minimum Social Security benefit for a retired worker should be
increased further. The 1965 Act raised it from $40 to $44 a month. It should be
appreciably increased to give a better break to those in the lowest income levels.
-27-
These changes may well require some further increases in the Social
Security tax, as I indicated previously, although by no means as great as those
necessary to support the Medicare plan. However, the changes are in the
interest of equity for a great many of our older citizens. To the extent that tax
increases are necessary, they should be made to maintain the solvency of the system.
A major problem with regard to income maintenance for older persons
is the growing tendency toward retirement of persons at 65, or even at an earlier
age, often as a requirement of pension systems in effect in private establishments.
In my judgment, this whole area should be the subject of an objective and
comprehensive study by a well-qualified group of persons, who would make
recommendations for dealing with the problem. This study should include some
means of encouraging the transfer of pensions from one employment to another,
so that a person who changed jobs could do so without losing what he had built
up toward an annuity in the previous job.
If the tendency toward early retirement of older persons still able to
work were slowed down or reversed, a substantial part of the burden on the Social
Security System would be lifted, and its financial problems relieved.
Aside from measures to increase the income position of older persons,
the Federal Government should stimulate construction of housing for elderly
persons by private non-profit organizations through the use of the mortgage
insurance facilities of the Federal Housing Administration.
Remove Crippling Rules on Housing
In particular, the crippling administrative directives issued in the latter
part of 1963 which have stifled new projects under Section 231 of the Federal
Housing Act should be removed.
-28-
Because of provisions of law adopted in the Eisenhower Administration,
this program proved highly successful in meeting the housing needs of growing
numbers of elderly persons.
Up until the crippling directives were issued, projects under this
section were already built or planned to provide 44,000 dwelling units for older
persons at a cost of more than $650 million, and at no expense to the Federal
Government, not even for administrative purposes.
The churches in particular suddenly found themselves up against a
roadblock.
Some church homes for the elderly have used for years a "founder's fee"
for many of their residents as a device for financing in part home capital and
operation costs. Under this approach, the person on entering the home makes a
lump-sum payment and receives a commitment from the home to care for him
the rest of his life, either at a specific rate or without additional cost.
But in August, 1963, the Government housing agency in Washington
issued a new requirement that, to receive mortgage insurance for a new church
home, the church would have to furnish a "legally enforceable guarantee" that the
home would live up to their commitment to care for such a person for the rest
of his life.
Now there was no justification in experience for such a requirement.
It was completely unwarranted.
But it has effectively blocked churches from starting new projects under
Section 231, because the complex organizational structure of most churches makes
it practically impossible for them to meet this requirement.
-29-
And perhaps that was what the housing administrators in Washington
wanted.
The opinion has been expressed that the actions taken to throttle
Section 231 were part of an effort by persons in the Government to replace
voluntary housing undertakings with projects involving direct use of federal
funds, and presumably controls.
In other words, the Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance
system doesn't help much to build up a bureaucratic empire. It doesn't provide
a lot of jobs. Therefore, shove it aside, spend the taxpayers' money, and set
up a system that will provide jobs and that the bureaucrats can dominate.
But the problem of housing for older persons, and of sheltered care for
those unable to take care of themselves, will not go away because of the designs
of certain Washington bureaucrats.
Need for Sheltered Care for many Older Persons
The problem should be faced, and the best answers provided. Direct
federal funds may well be necessary to a certain degree. But voluntary actions
which will not cost taxpayer money should be encouraged, not blocked.
Now I want to turn my attention specifically to the problem of sheltered
care for a relatively small percentage of the elderly who need constant and special
care on a continuing basis.
This includes elderly persons unable to care for themselves because of
age or permanent disability, and those unable to care for themselves and who
have no one to look after them.
-30-
For these people, the Federal Government should help to provide
facilities which will be safe and attractive, and which will provide the highest
quality of service in an environment that will enable them to live in dignity and honor.
Homes Needed, Not Institutions
The most suitable type of facility, in my judgment, is the church-type
home. And the home should have medical and nursing facilities to care for the
residents during spells of illness.
Such homes have decided advantages over nursing homes. In the first
place, they are living-oriented rather than patient-oriented. They provide a
happier environment, with less disruption of normal living patterns, and less of
a sense of isolation. And a better environment tends to minimize the effect of
serious illness.
I believe that many elderly persons who occupy nursing homes could
be cared for better and at less cost in homes of this type.
However, Federal and State assistance programs usually put a premium
on illness-oriented needs in a way that often forces recipients into nursing homes.
Federal assistance to provide church-type homes for elderly persons in
need of care should acknowledge State responsibility, and should be undertaken
in cooperation with States and with non-profit private organizations.
Other Measures that could be taken
Aside from revival of the Federal Housing Administration mortgage
insurance plan for housing and church-type homes for the elderly, it doubtless
would be well to:
-31-
-- Expand the provisions of the Hill-Burton Act to provide funds
on a matching basis to build church-type homes for the elderly, as well as
hospitals and nursing homes, as is done now.
Earnestly consider a plan for federal loan funds to build these
homes at an interest rate of three per cent.
Congress at the 1965 session made extensive provision for loans at
three per cent to build housing for elderly persons, for handicapped persons,
and for so-called "moderate-income" families displaced by government action,
such as urban renewal projects and highway construction. These new three per cent
loans are going to collide with federal loans previously made for a great variety
of projects at higher interest rates, including the same types of projects now
to be favored with a lower rate. This whole question should be examined in the
interest of equality of treatment.
In addition to helping to provide sheltered care facilities for older
persons in need of care, the Federal Government also should aid the States
in caring for them.
Here I think some limitations will have to be required.
There should be certain restrictions on eligibility for such care. I would
suggest that a person should be eligible if he is 72 or over and in need of care,
or if he is under 72 and permanently disabled, and over a certain age. This
minimum age could be 65 in the case of men and 62 in the case of women.
Where the person's income is below a stated level, the Federal-State
program, in my judgment, should pay the entire bill for his care. Where the income
is at a higher level, the person may be required to apply a portion of his income
to the cost of his care, less a certain amount for his own personal needs, say not
more than $40 or $50 a month. Perhaps a ceiling should be placed on the total
-32-
amount of the Federal-State contribution toward the person's care-- for example,
$300 a month.
These are only suggestions, and of course the details would have to be
worked out after careful consideration.
Help Elderly to maintain Their Independence
These proposals, of course, would cost a certain amount of money.
But if wisely set up and administered, it would not be wasted money. Measures
of this kind would meet the varied problems and needs of older people in a way
suitable for government action.
They would do this while maintaining to the fullest degree the dignity,
the traditional independence, and the personal responsibility of our older citizens.
They would not make them wards of a super-government in Washington.
Such an approach, I am certain, is essential for their welfare and
for that of the Nation.
####
Senior Citizens
"THE OLDER AMERICAN WHITE HOUSE FORUM"
A REPORT
PART I. PRE-CONFERENCE ACTIVITY:
A. Preliminary Conference Plans
Preliminary Conference plans provided for a major Conference
event to be held in 1970 -- the Older Americans White House
Forum.
The Forum concept was intended to accomplish two of the main
objectives of the White House Conference on Aging:
(1) To form a national network of community meetings,
where older persons would be invited to speak to
the nation about their needs.
(2) To arouse public awareness in and concern for
older peoples' needs and for the development of
their potential as a national resource.
This testimony would be gathered in several ways. First,
of course, older persons would speak out and their most
pertinent testimony would be recorded. In addition, so
that all older persons might express themselves, a ques-
tionnaire would be administered to each one. Finally,
older persons would be invited to submit whatever addi-
tional statements they might want to make.
Fortunately, as this report will disclose, the Forum
approach achieved much more than had been expected. As
organization of Forums proceeded, the Regional Offices and
State Agencies on Aging discovered that this approach stim-
ulated community organization, providing major support for
the State Agency's total program.
B. Preparatory Work
The following is a brief sequential account of preparatory
work done for the Older American White House Forums.
January: During the first weeks of 1970 the Conference
Director and a small technical staff developed preliminary
plans for pre-Conference activity of the Regional Offices
and State Agencies on Aging.
2
February: On February 24 the Conference Director met with
the Regional Commissioners of the Social and Rehabilitation
Service. The basic Conference structure was discussed, in-
cluding the conduct of Community Forums.
March: On March 5-6, 1970, the Associate Regional Commiss-
ioners on Aging and the liaison committee of the National
Association of State Units on Aging met with the Conference
Director and his staff to discuss preliminary Conference
plans. Work began on drafting a Guide for Regional and
State Activity, intended for use in organizing Older Ameri-
cans White House Forums.
April: Commissioner Martin, as Conference Director, re-
quested the Regional Commissioners to arrange regional meet-
ings of the staffs of State Agencies on Aging, for the pur-
pose of briefing them on preliminary Conference plans, es-
pecially the organization and conduct of Forums. The first
two regional meetings were held in San Francisco and Atlanta
in late April. Work proceeded on the Guide for Regional and
State Activity as specific plans for the Community Forums
were developed.
May: Three more regional meetings were held in New York City,
Dallas and Minneapolis.
June: Two other regional meetings were held with State
Agencies on Aging as soon as they could be arranged by the
Regional Commissioners. These were in Providence, Rhode
Island and Boise, Idaho.
Commissioner Martin wrote to each Governor, describing
preliminary Conference plans and specifically requesting
each Governor to:
(1) Issue a call for a State White House Conference on
Aging at an appropriate date in the month of May,
1971.
(2) Disignate the Executive Director of the State Unit
on Aging to be responsible for total coordination
of all White House Conference on Aging activities
in the State.
(3) Appoint a White House Conference on Aging Committee
as an advisory group to the State Unit.
(4) Appoint an interdepartmental Committee to work with
the State Unit on Aging.
(5) Mobilize legislative and departmental support for
the White House Conference on Aging.
3
Included with the letter were a copy of the Conference Call
by President Nixon and a copy of the Fact Sheet.
Near the end of May, draft copies of the Guide for Regional
and State Activity were mailed to the Regional Offices and State
Agencies on Aging for review and comment.
In response to a request from Commissioner Martin other
Federal agencies began to contact their field offices through-
out the nation encouraging them to participate in Forum acti-
vity.
On June 12, Commissioner Martin wrote all members of the
Congress, informing them of plans for Regional and State
Activity.
The Conference technical staff arranged to have a quanti-
ty of questionnaires produced by the American Rehabilitation
Foundation for use at the Community Forums.
July: The final regional meetings were held in Chicago and
Washington, D. C. The Dallas Regional Office requested a
second meeting which was held July 8.
The completed Guide for Regional and State Activity was
distributed in quantity to the State Agencies on Aging. This
Guide dealt largely with general State organization and sug-
gestions for organizing Community Forums. It was distribu-
ted in xeroxed form, since time did not permit printing.
The staff participated in five orientation sessions in-
volving over three-hundred national organizations. Follow-
ing these meetings, some of these organizations began sup-
plying staff rosters and membership lists. The Conference
staff arranged to supply this material to the State Agencies
on Aging.
The State Agencies on Aging began submitting orders for
quantities of questionnaires and Conference brochures.
August: As interest increased, it became apparent that
more communities wished to hold Community Forums than had
been expected. Many national organizations were becoming
involved, as a result of the July briefing sessions. The
4
State Agencies on Aging, working with small budgets and in-
adequate staff, could not be expected to work closely with
this many communities. A decision was made to produce ma-
terial which would enable communities to conduct Community
Forums without direct staff assistance.
Early in August the Conference staff distributed a
large quantity of (1) "A Self-Guide for Groups Organizing
and Conducting Older Americans White House Forums for Re-
porting the Results of the Forums to the State Agency on
Aging."
In late August some State Agencies on Aging began con-
ducting orientation sessions for their Community Forum
leaders.
On August 24, the American Rehabilitation Foundation be-
gan shipping 1,200,000 questionnaires to the State Agencies
on Aging.
September: During early September, more State Agencies on
Aging held orientation sessions for Community Forum leaders.
As the Forum week approached, State Agencies on Aging were
besieged with requests for additional material, especially
questionnaires. Reports indicate that, in addition to the
original 1,200,000, another 500,000 questionnaires were
printed and distributed by the States.
A Tabulating Form was distributed to the State Agencies
for tallying the results of Forum activity.
PART II. OLDER AMERICAN WHITE HOUSE FORUM ACTIVITY
A. Tabulation of Forum Results
As of November 19, the State Agencies on Aging have re-
ported that they have conducted more than 6,000 Older
Americans White House Forums. Most of these were held
during the week of September 20-26; However, some States
are continuing to hold Forums as more communities ask to
be involved in White House Conference activity.
White House Forums were conducted in each of the fifty
States, as well as in the several territories. Partici-
5
pating in these Forums was a wide array of older persons,
broadly representative of racial, ethnic, cultural, eco-
nomic and religious groups, and widely characteristic of
the rural and urban areas. Also, the Forums were attend-
ed by "listeners", who represented a cross-section of
providers of services, local, State and national legisla-
tive figures, government officials, and other community
leaders.
The White House Forums were of varied size. Many were
held on a neighborhood basis and were attended by small
numbers of people. Others were conducted in larger
areas, such as counties, legislative districts, or other
regions corresponding to state planning formulas.
The locale of individual Forums was equally varied, with
meetings being held in such places as senior centers,
civic auditoriums, fraternal and service clubs buildings,
churches and synagogues, individual homes, professional
office suites, public housing projects, nursing homes,
retirement villages, tribal houses on Indian reservations,
schools, and many others. In at least one case, a Forum
was conducted by the older inmates of a state peniten-
tiary.
The following is (1) a list showing distribution of
Forums by State, and (2) a Summary of most frequently
mentioned "Needs of Older Persons" based on early reports
from 25 States.
This report is based on reports from the individual States.
While it is reasonably accurate, it is not necessarily
complete.
Some Forums were held by individual organizations and
neighborhood groups which did not provide attendance
figures to the State Agency on Aging.
A number of Forums were held prior to September; since
these did not utilize the national "needs" questionnaire,
they were not included in the States' reports. However,
many recorded statements on the needs of older persons.
Many States report that Forums are still being held and wil 1
continue to be held through the remaining weeks of 1970.
I DISTRIBUTION OF FORUMS BY STATES
Number of
Forums
TOTALS
1. Alabama
119
2. Alaska
20
3. Arizona
65
4. Arkansas
210
5. California
800
6. Colorado
118
7. Connecticut
15
8. Delaware
1
9. District of Columbia
2
10. Florida
89
11. Georgia
162
12. Hawaii
4
13. Idaho
108
14. Illinois
210
15. Indiana
118
16. Iowa
18
17. Kansas
8
18. Kentucky
118
19. Louisiana
276
20. Maine
60
21. Maryland
251
22. Massachusetts
10
23. Michigan
162
24. Minnesota
11
25. Mississippi
62
26. Missouri
175
27. Montana
14
28. Nebraska
8
29. Nevada
7
30. New Hampshire
16
31. New Jersey
23
32. New Mexico
86
33. New York
10
34. North Carolina
128
35. North Dakota
8
36. Ohio
414
37. Oklahoma
157
38. Oregon
92
39. Pennsylvania
111
40. Rhode Island
9
41. South Carolina
41
42. South Dakota
91
43. Tennessee
223
44. Texas
825
45. Utah
127
46. Vermont
10
47. Virginia
40
48. Washington
18
49. West Virginia
307
50. Wisconsin
25
51. Wyoming
15
52. Guam
1
53. Puerto Rico
68
54. Virgin Islands
3
PHS. 24. 4
STATISTICAL WORK SHEET
REV. 10.64
6
Summary of Most Frequently Mentioned "MOST IMPORTANT NEEDS"
INCOME
Need increased income
Raise Social Security Benefits
Widow Social Security Benefits should be equal to husband's
Lower age limit for receiving full Social Security Benefits
Remove income limits which affect amount of Social Security
Benefits
Liberalize rules and regulations for eligibility for Welfare
Benefits
More consultative service regarding services and benefits to
which older persons are entitled
Medicare coverage should be more inclusive
Amend Medicaid eligibility requirements
Transferable pensions
All pensions should be exempt from taxes
Tax reduction (all kinds-Property, School Income, Utilities)
Reduced cost of living (i.e., medical costs, food, housing,
et al)
Wage and price controls to curb inflation
7
SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING
More interest in and direct concern for, older people by churches
- More pastoral visitation, especially to sick, lonely and
shut-ins
- Specialized services for counseling during crisis, grief,
illness, and hardships. In other words, perhaps a crisis
clinic for needy, etc.
- Programs and activities geared to special needs and in-
terest of elderly.
- Transportation for those able to attend services and pro-
grams or arrangements to "take the church" to those unable
to attend.
- Designate a special Sunday or other days for Senior Citi-
zens observances.
- More opportunity for older people to offer useful service
to the church.
EDUCATION
Pre-retirement education
Retirement Planning (especially for those already retired)
Information and referral centers to provide assistance to
OP who seek services to meet their needs (all kinds)
Broader curriculum offerings for OP - such as adult educa-
tion programs to include wide range of subjects (politics,
home management, home economics, finances, wills and es-
tates, arts, crafts.,)
Vocational re-training
Special educational programs geared to special needs of OP
8
Provide educational opportunities for shut-ins
(e.g., audio-visuals for nursing homes residents, hospital-
ized)
More and better training for those who provide services to
OP
Improve public education programs about the elderly
(include in public school curriculums courses on gerontology)
Government bodies need to be especially educated about needs
of OP
NUTRITION
Reduced costs of foods
Improved consumer education for older persons: shopping tips,
how to avoid frauds, what are best buys, nutritional value of
foods.
Education on proper meal preparation and general home econo-
mics.
Truth in labeling and packaging, including provision for
smaller quantities of foods as well as packaging special
foods with older people in mind.
Improve and broaden food stamp program.
Subsidized meal opportunities in public places, such as res-
taurants.
Meal delivery program for shut-ins (Community meal services)
Need for low-cost retirement institutions offering board and
room.
Improved diets for residents of special care institutions.
Inclusion of shared dining opportunities in congregate living
settings.
9
TRANSPORTATION
Need improved transportation systems (routes, time schedule, rural
service, weekends and holidays)
Reduced fares, or cost-free use, on all forms of public trans-
portation.
Improved safety standards on public transportation, as well as
pedestrian safety.
Make tax deductible those transportation costs which are related
to procuring health care and meeting other special needs.
Special provision by organizations or governmental groups for
transportation to meet needs of older people for such things
as shopping field trips, errands, emergencies, religious and
social services, health care.
Mandatory retirement at age 65 is unfair. Let retirement be
optional, flexible, and graduated.
Provide the mechanism for a gradual withdrawal from the labor
force as desired.
Increase employment opportunities, both full-time and part-time
(as a means to increase income, as well as to provide meaning-
ful and useful activity in order to maintain self-respect).
Improved and additional job-training and placement services,
especially for those with special needs and who suffer job
loss due to mandatory retirment, disability, or skill obso-
lescence.
Enforcement of age and sex discrimination laws especially re-
lated to older persons. (Also with regard to practices of
Insurance companies)
Liberalize and remove restrictions of income amount for Social
Security and other old-age benefits eligibility.
Provide commercial outlet for sales of items produced by
older persons.
10
HEALTH
Reduced health costs (all kinds: physicians, hospital,
drugs, special equipment).
Allow as tax deductible full cost of health-related expenses
Improve Medicare and Medicaid programs to be more inclu-
sive of coverage. (especially drugs, physical examina-
tions, dental, hearing and other special apparatus)
Disabled at any age should be eligible for Medicare.
To include chiropractors under Medicare
Improved and additional psychiatric care services
Improved and additional institutional care, facilities and
staff
Additional intermediate health care facilities
Provide and improve health education-information centers and
consultation services
Provide home services for those unable to care for themselves,
as well as for those who wish to, or should, remain indepen-
dent in own quarters.
Improved and additional out-patient/clinics, (screening and
treatment clinics)
More and better professionally trained health care personnel,
especially in nursing homes and special institutions, also
improved diets, social services, recreational opportunities
in those settings)
Simplify complicated red tape procedures related to Medicare
and Medicaid and other related legal technicalities.
Remove "use as directed" labels from drugs and provide
more specific direction.
11
HOUSING
Reduced housing costs:
- liberalize limitations for eligibility in public
housing projects and other low-income housing projects;
- rent control in non-public housing (private sector) in
which older persons dwell;
- older people to be exempt from property and school
taxes
Additional housing for low and moderate income groups, with
special consideration toward variety of types, conveniences
of location, and inclusion of design features and special
equipment geared to needs of the elderly. Also, multi-
purpose facilities and services should be incorporated in
such programs.
Improvement of existing housing facilities which older peo-
ple occupy, (including enforcement of safety and health
codes by appropriate government authority).
Information center, or other means of publicity, of hous-
available for older people.
Opportunity for housing providing options for congregate
cooking and/or proximity to cross-section age groups for
social interaction.
Improve nursing home facilities, with lower rates, better
diets, sympathetic competent staff, preservation of dignity
and privacy;
Foster homes for older people with special needs.
Provide home maintenance services, and/or provide maintenance
allowances for recipients of public assistance.
12
ROLES AND ACTIVITIES
More centers and clubs for older people (plus expansion of
existing programs to provide for:
-social contacts and companionship
-recreational opportunities
-educational opportunities, trips, group discussion
-interaction with other age groups
More, specific, services for shut-ins (such as social-
recreational programs for nursing home residents and others
with physical or mental disabilities).
Society should be better educated and informed about aged
persons and process of growing old.
-"there should be more public acceptance of retirees"
-need pre-retirement planning programs and retirement
counseling services
More opportunities for older people to be "doers" and not just
"receivers:"
-training in volunteer work
-opportunities to remain or become politically active
-"to feel important and be useful" there should be
created variety of programs to accomplish this accord-
ing to needs, abilities and interests.
Increased funding support of such items as listed above.
Increased publicity of services and program for older
people.
13
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF FORUM ACTIVITY
The over-all goal of the 1971 White House Conference on
Aging, to develop a more realistic and comprehensive national
policy for older Americans, was inherent in the concept and
organization of Older American Community Forums during the
Prologue Year 1970 when "Older Americans Speak To The
Nation. To that end, the specific goals of the Forums and
their successful achievement constituted the first impor-
tant phase of the White House Conference.
An analysis of Forum activity reveals dramatic evidence of
early and far-reaching effects and their significance for
subsequent phases of Conference planning. The specific
goals of the Forums, as delineated in the "Guide for
Regional and State Activity" were:
1. "Increasing public awareness of older people and their
circumstances and involving significant numbers of
older persons must be dominant in this year's activity."
It is realistic to believe that the forums have resulted
in "increasing public awareness." There is evidence of
this from several sources: the massive nationwide news
coverage before and after the Forums; the involvement of
national organizations with many of them having large
memberships; the cooperation and interest shown by other
Federal agencies; the frequent requests from members of
Congress for information on the progress of the Confer-
ence.
"Significant numbers of older persons" were involved in
the Forums. More than half a million older people par-
ticipated in over 6,000 Community Forums.
Their testimony was further recorded as they filled out
Needs Questionnaires, which were collected and sent to a
computer organization for processing. Hundreds of the
Questionnaires were mailed to Commissioner Martin,
along with many personal letters as well. In four cases,
tape recordings of Forum testimony were forwarded to the
Commissioner. The results of testimony were also com-
piled in many States, showing a tabulation of the "most
important needs" identified by the Forums' participants.
14
2. "To achieve the objective of strengthening community
organization for aging as a major result of the Confer-
ence, early community involvement is essential. "
No where was the success of Forum activity more evident
than in the willingness and ability of the States and
local communities to cooperatively initiate and coordi-
nate the Forum events. In many places, the framework
for such organization was already existing, and thereby
was effectively utilized and reenforced throughout the
planning and conducting of Forums. When a community de-
cided to hold a community Forum it was necessary to set
up a committee to organize the Forum. These committees
can be used not only for future Conference activity,
but also for developing other programs for the aging in
the local communities. Such a network of communications
and planning, along with hundreds of new personal con-
tacts among community leaders, officials, and citizens-
at-large, will, we hope, certainly strengthen the effec-
tiveness of community organization for purposes far
beyond those exclusively related to the situation of
older persons. Most apparent, however, is the fact that
now the way is paved for planning and implementing the
remaining White House Conference events toward a suc-
cessful conclusion.
3. "Conference activity in 1970 must support the develop-
ment of a realistic national policy for the older pop-
ulation. "
The overall goal for the 1971 White House Conference on
Aging is the development of a "National Policy on
Aging. " The first step towards that goal was the parti-
cipation of significant numbers of older persons in the
Community Forums. That this first step was accomplished
is evident from the numbers of Forums held and the large
numbers of older persons who participated.
The collation of data resulting from the Forums, along
with data from other sources, will serve as documentary
evidence to authenticate the critical needs of today's
older Americans. This data will further serve as a
foundation for the formulation of recommendations which
emerge through the refining process of Community and
State White House Conferences in early 1971, and more
resolutely from the national White House Conference
itself in November-December 1971.
15
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF OTHER EFFECTS OF FORUM ACTIVITY
The analysis of Forum-related activity further includes a re-
view of other effects which cannot be contained or measured
in the data-gathering process. Such effects are consonant
with the goals of the total White House Conference concept.
The more striking positive effects may be summarized as
follows:
1. Stimulation of Government Interest and Participation
(a) Federal
The Federal government, through its many agencies
and departments across the nation, (particularly
at national and regional levels), was called upon
to lend its assistance to many of the activities
related to organizing and coordinating Community
Forums.
Administrators, staff members, and members of
Congress also participated in Forum events as
"official listeners" when testimony was given by
older persons.
(b) State
The Governors, and particularly the State Agencies
on Aging, were enlisted in the early stages of
planning for White House Conference activities in
their states. The participation of members of
State legislative bodies, other officials, and
staff personnel of State agencies, departments
and special projects, was also an essential con-
tribution to the success of Forum activity.
(c) Local
Municipal and county officials, through their
various departments and programs, likewise parti-
cipated to a great degree in the preparatory phases
and actual Forum event.
16
Stimulation of the Interest and Participation of Non-
Government Groups and Organizations
What has been stated in the above portion relative to the
role of government in Forum activity, may be similarly stated
about the important role played by other organizations in the
public and private sector.
(a) Academic Institutions
The Administrators, faculty members, and other represen-
tative of colleges, universities, and other institutions
of higher learning served in significant capacities by
directing their professional interests and expertise to
Forum activities.
(b) National Organizations
The interest and involvement of nearly 400 national or-
ganizations was attracted and coordinated (and often
initiated) through their networks of local chapters.
These organizations were widely representative of the
fields of social services, health and medicine, youth,
fraternal orders, labor groups, religion, and the like.
(c) Local Community Organizations
There were numberous community-level groups, not re-
lated to national organizations, which also provided
the base of operations for Forum activity to take shape
and occur. Their initial interest was a strategic fac-
tor in eliciting an enormous amount of additional in-
terest where it was otherwise non-existent. Such groups
were representative of senior citizen groups, private
health-education-and social service organizations,
churches, synagogues, civic affairs groups, neighborhood
clubs, and community action programs.
GSA DC 71.6879
REPUBLICAN
CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE
NEWSLETTER NOTES
Ideas for your own newsletter from the
PUBLIC RELATIONS DIVISION
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003
Lincoln 4-3010
June 9, 1972
SALTING AWAY THE MEGATONS--We've become so accustomed to hearing
the terms "megatons," "MIRV," "ICBM" and "nuclear war, that they mean little to our
consciousness.
But the importance of the SALT agreements can be pointed up by considering
just what is being talked about. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were rated at 20,000 tons of TNT (20 kilotons). A megaton is the equivalent of one
million tons of TNT. We've tested devices up to 15 megatons. The Soviets have gone
up to 50.
At this point, our military people have stopped the size race and now are
concentrating on smaller missiles with multiple warheads, since they just would not
require the wasted energy of huge nuclear bombs to destroy enemy targets. Our Poseidon
submarine missiles, for instance, contain 10 multiple, independently targeted, re-entry
vehicles (MIRV), each with a yield three times that which destroyed Hiroshima. In
addition, we have SCRAM air-to-ground rockets in our B-52 bombers, which can be
fired 100 miles away from target, and have the force of 10 times the Hiroshima blast.
Regardless of numbers of big missiles being discussed, the U.S. has a huge store house
of deliverable megatonnage--lethal, small packages. The Soviets have been building
up their arsenal, too.
Nuclear war, with this kind of destruction available to both sides, transcends
fear and approaches the incomprehensible. This is the import of the SALT agreement.
Stopping the buildups is a first step. The next logical step is agreement not to use these
weapons. This will take time, much negotiating, much relaxation of tensions between
our people and the Soviet Union.
Lurking in our minds, of course, is the Communist credo of world domination--
so it will require deeds, not words, for these agreements to stick. But SALT is a start
down the road to nuclear disarmament and to the Generation of Peace the President has
set as a goal.
***
OF COMRADES AND CARS--Is bigness badness? There is a growing volume of
vocal criticism against American industry, aided and abetted by the sensationalism of
Ralph Nader, which attempts to pin all the ills on the economic front on big business.
The idea expounded is that because they are big they are bad.
It has taken the U.S. two centuries of development to reach today's productive
pinnacle. It betrays shallow thinking to attack U.S. business because it has learned how
to make goods cheaply. It is easy to find fault. Anything mechanical has its hazards.
President Nixon's visit to Moscow brought out some interesting contrasts between
the U.S. and the Soviet Union. For instance, the auto industry is a favorite target of the
Naderists. In Russia, auto production is not competitive at all. The average Soviet
citizen only dreams of a car. The Zhiquli, Russian version of the Fiat, costs the equivalent
of $6,707, more than a year's salary for most. It takes up to 8 months to get a car in Russia.
Model choices are about the same as in the days of the Model T in the U.S. Gas stations
are few, gas is strictly rationed, and there is only one car wash in Moscow. Buying a car
is a bureaucratic obstacle course of forms and frustration.
***
(more)
- 2 -
In the U.S., the buyer has hundreds of model choices, can buy on demand,
has a gas station and car wash it seems on every corner. How come? Competition. Many
hundreds of firms have entered the auto business. They have shaken down to four major
producers. Why? Because their products did not appeal to the mass market. The buyer
here is still king. The buyer makes the decisions on the basis of what appeals to his or
her demands. There is a huge used-car market, which competes with new cars, forcing
improvements and holding the line on prices. Along with big auto business has come big
oil business with stiff price competition for products and services. Gas "price wars" refute
Nader's monopoly charges.
There are millions of jobs in the U.S. created solely by our infatuation with
wheels. In Russia, the huge new state-owned Volga auto plant turns out 3,000 cars a
day--far less than a million a year. U.S. manufacturers are turning out 8 million cars,
trucks and buses. In addition, there are 23 foreign car makers selling 1.5 million cars
a year in the U.S. No other nation even comes close to providing its people with the
mobility that the U.S. auto industry has developed for Americans. Comparing the car
industry with the boat industry reveals that, because boats are not assembly-line made and
because they require considerable hand work, they are selling at very high prices--and
the dropout rate of manufacturers is increasing rapidly.
It is exasperating when autos do not perform up to the owner's expectations.
But in the Soviet Union, some 8 million people won't be able to buy an auto this year--
but 8 million Americans will buy U.S. cars. This bounteous supply of rolling stock is the
dividend we get from bigness in our production facilities.
* * *
SHORT HAUL FOR THE LONG HAUL--The Department of Transportation has
come up with a new program to ease congestion and noise problems around urban areas
and to provide better service throughout the Nation for air travelers. It consists of
de-centralization=-taking short haul air traffic out of huge airports and spreading it
around to smaller airports to service the short-hop traffic.
Secretary John Volpe said the new system would not compete with rail facilities,
but would concentrate on areas where no adequate rail connections exist and where air
travel is growing rapidly. A new breed of super-quiet planes is in the offing and the
program now is in the stage of evaluating the Nation's secondary airports to fit them into
the short-haul program. Funds will be supplied to develop safety facilities and to guarantee
the system is environmentally sound.
***
AMERICANS, TOO?--There is a growing movement in Congress to pass some
kind of legislation which would reimburse victims of crime. Several States have such
laws--only recently the State of Maryland agreed to pay $45,000 to a heroic cab driver
who was shot going to the aid of a woman who was being robbed by four youths.
One argument is that U.S. citizens should have the same rights as foreigners.
The U.S. has processed more than 17,000 cases under the Foreign Claims Act to reimburse
foreigners for crimes such as assault, robbery or rape committed in foreign lands by U.S.
citizens. Some $10 million has been paid out since 1970. But, in the U.S., the victim
has no redress to the Government.
This is a knotty question. It poses the concept that the Government is totally
responsible for an individual's safety--and must pay if that safety breaks down. Many of
us, sympathetic though we might be toward the victims of crime, wonder if Uncle Sam can
continue to assume responsibility for every facet of American life. The payout would be
in the billions of dollars in the U.S. --and we would have to enact taxes eventually to pay
for the benefits. There is pressure also to step up the war on crime, reform the courts with
more judges and court workers and to rehabilitate criminals. All in all, crime would turn
out to be the Government's most expensive activity.
***
- 3 -
NOTE TO MEMBERS--Rep. Robert H. Steels of Connecticut has issued, "A
Guide for Senior Citizens," containing information on Social Security, Railroad Employee
Benefits, VA benefits, Medicare-Medicaid, Old Age Assistance, Nutrition and Fitness,
Housing, Legal aids, Transportation, Employment Opportunities, Federal and State taxes,
Voter information, Drivers' licenses, Department on Aging and a directory of services
available to Senior Citizens. It is illustrated and contains listings of local agencies and
organizations involved with old-age activities. This is an outstanding booklet, adaptable
for almost any Congressional District. Contact Steve Berg (52076), Room 1206 Longworth,
for information on how it was put together.
***
VIETNAM--Edmund Burke once said, "Retrospect is not wise or proper. The only
proper subject of inquiry is, not how we got into this difficulty, but how we can get out of
it!" Here's the latest situation in Vietnam:
1. Reduction of troop level from 550,000 to 60,000;
2. Withdrawals of U.S. forces steadily continuing;
3. Interdiction working;
4. Neither Russia nor China offer overt reaction.
Here is the United States offer:
1. Out in four months, after
2. Release of POWs and MIAs;
3. Internationally supervised ceasefire.
What do opponents of U.S. proposal offer?
Answer: Accept all of the above except ceasefire.
Accept promise of Hanoi to release POWs and MIAs.
But the ceasefire is the only way to end the killing. And Hanoi's promise,
rather than actual release is not enough. Of 36,709 French POWs and MIAs, only
10,754 were ever released. Hanoi never accounted for the rest.

Page data

Page: 1
Source index: 0
Type: document
Media ID: 54f2733a21d37ce5
Size: unknown

Document data

ID: 4530405
Core: doc
Type: document

DTO data

{
    "id": "4530405",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530405",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Senior Citizens",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530405",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Press Secretary Reference Materials"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Old age"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642095/4530405.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642095/4530405.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642095/4530405.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity

{
    "localId": "4530405",
    "label": "Senior Citizens",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530405"
}

Document source metadata

{
    "id": "4530405",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530405",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Senior Citizens",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530405",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Press Secretary Reference Materials"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Old age"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642095/4530405.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642095/4530405.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642095/4530405.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Document source extras

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530405",
    "naId": 4530405,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1972-06-30",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1972
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1965-11-01",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1965
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

Page context

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642095/4530405.pdf",
    "mediaId": "54f2733a21d37ce5",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D107, folder \"Senior Citizens\" of the Gerald R.\nFord Congressional Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the\nUnited States of America her copyrights in all of her husband's unpublished writings in National\nArchives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official\nduties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or\norganizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed\nin the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nle:Slder Atizens\nJam Inn Mudge\nREPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE\n1625 EYE STREET NORTHWEST\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20006\nNAtional 8-6800\nRAY C. BLISS\nCHAIRMAN\nNovember 8, 1965\nmaterial\nF/Ther here for some or speeches\nThe Honorable\nin\nGerald R. Ford\nU. S. House of Representatives\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Jerry:\nIn looking forward to the Republican Campaign of 1966,\nI am increasingly impressed with the need for strengthening\nour position with the older Americans -- the \"over-65\"\nvoters -- by making a special attempt to reach them with\nour case.\nAs a possible aid to you in this important task, I am\nenclosing a copy of a basic speech which was prepared\ncooperatively by our Public Relations staff and our Senior\nCitizens Division, at the request of Senator Gordon Allott.\nYou are free to use any material contained in paraphrased\nform, bearing in mind that the material as written, will be\ndelivered by Senator Allott in the near future.\nI would be grateful for your reactions to the material and\nany suggestions you may care to offer.\nWith every good wish, I am\nSincerely yours,\nR\nRay C. Bliss\n21\nA REAL HELP PROGRAM FOR OLDER CITIZENS\nMy purpose in speaking to you is to discuss the problems and needs of\nour older citizens, and the role of the Federal Government in dealing with this\nentire question. I am going to try to state clearly and factually what is going on in\nthis area now, and my position on some of the things that have happened. I shall\nattempt to point out certain difficulties that I think are bound to arise. I shall\nundertake to outline what I believe the Federal Government should do to help our\nolder citizens, not merely to meet their problems and needs, but to maintain their\nmorale, their position and their traditional independence and integrity as citizens\nof our Republic.\nThe Elderly Increase in Numbers\nThe present approach to this whole question is complicated by an unusual\ndevelopment, and I think it is fair to say that this development has influenced the\nanswers offered to the problems and needs of older persons.\nFirst, our older citizens are growing:\nin numbers\n--and as a proportion of the total voting population.\nIt is estimated that by November, 1966, there will be 19 million\nAmericans 65 years of age and older, and that they will cast more than 20 per cent\nof the vote in national, State and local elections. They will not constitute 20 per cent\nof the registered voters, of course, but apparently more of them vote than is the\ncase with younger citizens, an evidence of deep interest in their citizenship\nresponsibilities.\n-2-\nThus if any substantial number of them vote the same way, they are\ncapable of deciding many election contests. And because this is true, it is perhaps\nno coincidence that our older citizens are objects of growing political interest.\nDoubtless many of our older citizens are already beginning to look on this\npolitical interest as they look on prospective heirs who are wondering what\nUncle Joe or Aunt Ellen will leave in their wills. In other words, how much of this\npolitical interest is interest in them, and how much is self-interest.\nNow I point out all this as background because there are a couple of facts\nthat I think should be brought out. And in referring to these facts, I am not\nnecessarily trying to impeach anybody. My essential purpose is to make sure that\ncertain contemporary developments are clearly understood.\nEffort to Organize Older Citizens\nThe basic fact is that a calculated and systematic effort is under way to\norganize our older citizens into a voting bloc, and by an unusual coincidence, into\na voting bloc willing to:\n--support Democratic candidates for national office\n--and through organized effort, Democratic legislative proposals\npresented to Congress.\nNow I am not saying that there is anything wrong with an attempt to organize\nolder citizens or other groups into a voting bloc or blocs, so long as the objects\nof this wooing process understand what kind of game is being played and are entirely\nfree to accept or reject the wooers, without interference from questionable influences.\nHowever, I think it is pertinent to point to the present situation because of\ntwo elements involved in it:\n-3-\n-- The contemporary drive to organize our older citizens into a\nvoting bloc has influenced heretofore, and doubtless will in the future, the programs\noffered as answers to the problems and needs of the elderly.\nThere is a reasonable question as to the effect of some of these\nprograms on the morale, the position in the community, and the independence and\nintegrity of many of our older citizens.\nNow, to get down to certain specifics:\nThe campaign to bring older citizens together into a voting bloc had its\ninception in the Presidential campaign of 1960, when a group known as Senior\nCitizens for Kennedy-Johnson was organized under the Chairmanship of\nDemocratic Congressman Aime J. Forand of Rhode Island.\nNo criticism here. This is perfectly valid political activity. But let's\nfollow through and see what has happened since that time.\nSenior Citizens for Kennedy-Johnson was dissolved in the winter of 1961,\nand in August of that year the National Council of Senior Citizens for Health Care\nthrough Social Security was formed under the Chairmanship of Mr. Forand, now\na former Congressman, and opened an office in Washington.\nMr. Forand had attracted considerable attention as the foremost\nsponsor of legislation providing for a hospital program for elderly persons under\nthe Social Security System.\nNational Council of Senior Citizens\nSome months after its organization, the National Council of Senior Citizens\nfor Health Care through Social Security shortened its name to National Council of\nSenior Citizens, Inc., and changed its structure to permit the establishment of a\nlarge national body.\n-4-\nThe group joined with the Democratic Administration in Washington,\nand with a number of union leaders, in campaigning for and jamming through Congress\nthe so-called \"Medicare\" plan incorporated in the 1965 Social Security Act.\nThe organization, which calls itself a \"pressure group, \" sometime ago\ncommemorated the fourth anniversary of its existence. Mr. Forand has been\nsucceeded as President by John W. Edelman, a well-known and able union official\nwho formerly was legislative representative in Washington of the Textile Workers'\nUnion.\nIn a news release on the occasion of its fourth anniversary, the National\nCouncil reported that 2, 000 older people's clubs had affiliated with it, and that\nnew clubs were joining up at the rate of about 20 a month. It also claimed the\naffiliation of about 70 Statewide and area councils with a combined membership of\nsome two million persons.\nIf the leaders of the National Council wish to ally themselves with the\nDemocratic Party, it is, of course, their privilege to do so. Nevertheless, it should\nbe understood that, at this point in its development, the National Council is committed\nto the Democratic cause, and to the Democratic Administration in Washington and its\npolicies.\nAdmittedly, it is becoming a formidable front for organizing the nation's\nolder citizens into a bloc committed to the support of Democrats for national office\nand Democratic legislation before Congress.\nWhile the National Council insists that it is not a \"rubber stamp\" for\nJohnson Administration \"Great Society\" plans and other measures, the record thus\nfar shows that it has supported a great many Administration proposals, some of which\ncould hardly be classed as of particular interest to older citizens.\n-5-\nCouncil Supports Repeal of 14(b)\nAdministration legislative proposals which the National Council has\nidentified itself as supporting include repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley\nAct. As is generally known, repeal of this provision of law would nullify the\n\"right-to-work\" laws in effect in 19 states and prepare the way for compulsory\nunion membership throughout the Nation. Even with the advantage of a top-heavy\nDemocratic majority, the Administration failed to force through the Senate a bill\nto repeal Section 14(b) at the 1965 session. Clearly, repeal of this provision would\naccord with the ambitions of union leaders who control the National Council. I must\nconfess, however, that I am at a loss to see how it would help the overwhelming\nmajority of the Nation's older citizens. Valid questions certainly may be raised as to\nwhether it would help them find employment, or in any way increase their incomes.\nA Gift of $40,000\nAside from supporting Administration legislative proposals, the National\nCouncil is backing a variety of plans for more welfare and other benefits for older\npersons, including a more elaborate \"Medicare\" system.\nMany of our older citizens, however, may be interested in the two-sided\noperation carried on by the organization:\n--organizing older citizens into Democratic voting groups throughout\nthe Nation\n--and actively supporting before Congress specific legislative proposals\nsponsored by the Democratic Administration.\n-6-\nThus older citizens who join up with groups actively supporting the\nNational Council and its policies may find that they are not merely voters. They\nmay be indirectly supporting legislation about which they perhaps are not clearly\ninformed or even aware.\nIn consideration for its services, the Democratic National Committee\nmade a contribution of $40,000 to the National Council during the 1964 Presidential\ncampaign. Leaders of the organization have attended many bill-signing ceremonies\non invitation of President Johnson.\nA Bureaucracy to Exploit the Elderly\nBut there is another chapter to this story, and that involves the young and\ngrowing bureaucracy that concerns itself with the problems and needs of older\npeople.\nOne of the bills that the National Council sponsored, according to its\nown statement, was the Older Americans Act, which became law July 14, 1965.\nThis law created a new Administration on Aging, which the Department of Health,\nEducation and Welfare says will become one of its major operations. The Department\nexplains that the functions of this new agency will include the following:\nThe handling of federal grants to the States to help them establish and expand\nprograms and services for older persons, and grants to public and non-profit private\nagencies for research and various other activities. The Act authorized the appropriation\nof $17.5 million to get these projects started in the 1966 and 1967 fiscal years,\nand whatever sums Congress might see fit to allow to carry them on the following\nthree fiscal years. But, of course, these sums would be only a little seed money\nwhich eventually could produce a forest.\n-7-\nBut here are other functions of the new agency:\nServing as a clearing-house for information related to the problems\nof older persons.\n--Aiding the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and\nWelfare in matters pertaining to these problems.\nProviding for research and demonstration projects related to the\nelderly.\n-Giving technical assistance to, and consulting with, the States\nand communities concerning the problems of the aged.\nPreparing, publishing and distributing literature dealing with the\nwelfare of older persons.\nGathering statistics in this field.\nStimulating more effective use of existing resources and available\nservices for helping older persons.\nTherefore, the new agency has just about taken over the whole job of\ndealing with our older citizens, and of course it has only just started. If it is a\nmajor operation already, it is sure to expand greatly in the years ahead, in the\nevent the present trends in government continue.\nIf this agency has its way, federal programs for the elderly are practically\nsure to become one of the most elaborate, costly and bureaucrat-dominated\nactivities in our country. These programs are naturals for bureaucratic empire-\nbuilders.\nAlready the high dreams are expanding. In a speech some time ago,\nVice President Hubert Humphrey said that the Administration plans to increase the\nnumber of community centers for the elderly from 700 in 1965 to 7,500 by 1970.\nHe said this would require recruitment of 30, 000 more social workers and others\nto plan and operate these centers.\n-8-\nTeen-Agers would Adopt Elderly as Grandparents\nMeanwhile, a bewildering variety of proposals are being developed\nfor helping older people. In 1964, the Democratic majority of the Special Senate\nCommittee on Aging drew up a list of 15 recommendations for action, including\nextensive plans in the areas of housing, food, recreation and education for older\npersons.\nThe fifteenth recommendation of the Democratic majority was rather\nunusual. It reads as follows:\n\"The committee recommends that State and local aging commissions,\nfriendly visitor services and other organizations which deal with senior citizens\nwho are lonely and isolated seek to interest high school students and other young\npeople in 'adopting grandparents'. \"\nNow, I don't know how the older people are going to react to this idea,\nbut I suspect that, if any adopting is to be done, they would prefer to choose their\nadopted grandchildren instead of having youngsters look over and choose or reject\nthem.\nThis proposal has at least one virtue. It probably would not cost a lot\nof money except the amount necessary to pay the salaries of those who would try\nto carry out \"Operation Grandparent.\"\nBut the prevailing trend of these proposals is clear. It divides into\ntwo parts:\nCost is no consideration; here the sky is the limit.\nThe nation's older citizens must be separated from the rest of the\ncommunity and given special aids and services; they must be treated as if they were\nincapable of making decisions for themselves; in effect, they are to become wards\nof a super-government.\n-9-\nSelling Programs by Brainwashing\nThis entire effort is being promoted through a brainwashing operation\nwhich has two purposes: To sell the programs to our older citizens, and to crush\nall opposition or criticism. This brainwashing operation makes much use of names\nand slogans that always paint the programs in a highly attractive and alluring\nlight, and references and allusions that portray the opposition as specters from\nthe past.\nWe have been told often that power feeds upon power, and we have here,\nI think, a picture of it. A troika consisting of the Democratic Administration in\nWashington, a private organization serving as one of its political arms, and a\nbureaucracy created by the joint efforts of both, are holding out allurements\nto our older citizens.\nThe professed purpose is to take care of the problems and needs of\nolder people.\nBut I think it is generally acknowledged that the actual purpose is to\ncapture their lasting loyalty and their support.\nPower grown enormously great is greedy for still more power.\nAll to be Paid out of Taxes\nThe benevolences extended to our older citizens, of course, are payable\nout of taxpayers' funds; that is, unless the Democratic Administration chooses\nto borrow the money and thus pour more fuel on the inflationary forces that perhaps\nhave hurt elderly persons more than any other group.\n-10-\nIn my judgment, it is unfortunate that our older citizens have become\nthe targets of political power-seekers. That they have problems and needs that\ndeserve the attention of the Federal Government, as well as State and local\ngovernments, is beyond question. They deserve something better than an effort\nto exploit them. In fact, they deserve programs that represent the best answers\nto their difficulties, and not politically-oriented answers. And these answers should\naccord with their dignity, their place in the community, and their traditional\nindependence as citizens.\nThe Medicare Program\nNow I want to turn my attention to the Medicare Program. Actually,\nMedicare as it now stands is a slogan of the Madison Avenue type more than a\nprogram. But in an era of government by slogans rather than by realistic\nmeasures, it gains acceptance as a program.\nI voted against this plan for one primary reason:\nI did not consider it the best answer to the problem of providing health\ncare to our older citizens.\nSo far as I am aware, everybody acknowledges the existence of this\nproblem, and there is practically a universal desire to develop good and effective\nanswers to it. On this point, no differences exist between Republicans and\nDemocrats, or among other responsible and interested groups in America. The\ndifferences are entirely over what answers should be offered. And that certainly\nis a proper subject for reasonable consideration and debate.\nHealthy debate over differences of view has been a tradition in our\ncountry since it was founded 173 years ago, and this has been one of the major\nreasons for its progress.\n-11-\nThis business of having something jammed down your throat, regardless\nof whether you think it is good, is alien to that tradition, and if it becomes the\nestablished rule in our country, its progress will be at an end.\nThe Medicare plan was jammed down the throats of all those who\nbelieved that a better answer to the problem could be provided. An effort was\neven made to force the House-approved version of the plan through the Senate\nwithout improvements or corrections of any kind. This effort did not succeed.\nBut the fact that it was tried speaks more eloquently than words could do as to\nthe attitude and tactics of the present Democratic Administration in Washington.\nIncidentally, it is now estimated that about 12, 000 new Federal jobs\nwill be created to carry out the Medicare program. This, of course, is of\nconsiderable importance to the political power-builder. While \"jobs for Democrats\"\nhave little bearing on the welfare of our older citizens, they are a source of\npolitical power.\nAn Alternative Program\nIn place of the Medicare plan, I favored a proposal under which federal\ngrants would have been made to the States to help persons 65 and older pay the\ncost of health insurance if they could not pay it otherwise. The insurance\ncontemplated was of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield types.\nUnder this plan, the federal and state governments would pay the entire\ncost of insurance for elderly persons whose incomes fall below limits set by\nthe State government.\nFor those with incomes between a stated minimum and a maximum figure,\nthe federal-state contribution would pay part of the cost of the insurance on a sliding\nscale based on income. The lower the income, of course, the greater the portion of\ninsurance cost paid out of government funds.\n-12-\nPersons with incomes above the maximum figure would receive no\npayment from government funds. However, they would receive an income tax\ndeduction for what they paid out for health insurance.\nAdvantages of Alternative Plan\nSuch an approach seemed to me to have a number of advantages:\n--It would provide, particularly for lower income groups, a much broader\nrange of protection against health care costs than the Medicare plan offered by\nthe Johnson Administration. It would include doctors' bills, surgeons' charges,\nand drugs outside the hospital, none of which would be covered by the Medicare\nplan proposed by the Administration. It would also include hospital and nursing\nhome charges, which are covered by the Medicare plan under specific conditions\nand stated limits.\n-- The portion of the cost borne by the Federal Government would be paid\nout of general revenues, thereby avoiding an extra tax on salaries and wages,\nwith no exemptions or deductions of any kind, as is provided by the Medicare plan.\n-- The plan would not be saddled on the Social Security System, thereby\nimposing on the system a burden which will jeopardize its solvency in the years ahead.\n--It would cost less than Medicare, because it would not provide, as\nMedicare does, for hospital and nursing home care for well-to-do and wealthy\npersons, paid for out of taxes on a worker's pay.\nAt the same time, it would not require a \"pauper's oath\" to qualify for\nits benefits, which is one of the complaints against the Kerr-Mills program. A\nsimple statement of income is all that would be needed to establish eligibility for\ngovernment payment of insurance costs, or assistance in meeting these costs.\n-13-\n--It would utilize existing facilities, including the extensive private\ninsurance system developed in the United States, instead of creating a costly new\nbureaucracy, with its built-in federal interference with the practice of medicine\nand the administration of hospitals and nursing homes.\nMedicare is Law\nHowever, the Medicare plan is now the law of the land, and it is the\nresponsibility of all of us to try to make it work, with as little dislocation and\ndifficulty as possible. This will take a bit of doing, because the plan has decided\nlimitations.\nLet us look for a moment at what Medicare will do, and at what it will\nnot do. I am talking now about the Medicare plan which is to be financed for the\ngreater part by the new tax on wages and salaries provided for in the 1965 Social\nSecurity Act. This is the plan that was steamrollered through Congress by the\nJohnson Administration and its allied power blocs.\nThe plan covers persons 65 and over, regardless of their income, their\nability to provide their own medical care, or whether they are drawing Social\nSecurity benefits or are even entitled to such benefits. For persons not entitled\nto such benefits, the costs of Medicare will be paid for out of general Treasury\nrevenues, rather than out of payroll tax funds.\nWhat Medicare Does\nThe plan provides that:\nBeginning July 1, 1966, an elderly person shall be entitled to up to 60 days\nof hospital care for a spell of sickness, provided he pays the first $40 of the hospital\ncosts. If he is still sick after 60 days, he can receive an additional 30 days of\nhospital care, but he must pay $10 a day for every day he spends in the hospital\n-14-\nafter 60 days. After he uses up the extra 30 days, he is on his own and will have\nto pay the entire bill himself.\n--Hospital care will be provided in semi-private rooms containing two\nto four beds, according to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.\nDrugs necessary for use while the patient is in the hospital will be provided.\n--After a person has been in the hospital for at least three days, he may\nbe transferred to a nursing home or to a convalescent section of the hospital, if a\nphysician certifies that the additional care is necessary. If this occurs, he may\nreceive up to 20 days of additional care in semi-private accommodations without\ncharge, and if necessary an additional 80 days of care, provided he pays $5 a\nday for every day he stays in excess of 20 days. Incidentally, this feature of\nthe new law does not go into effect until January 1, 1967. Therefore, there is a\nquestion as to what happens to a person who enters a hopsital in the summer of 1966,\nand who needs to be transferred to a nursing home or a convalescent section of\nthe hospital after his hospital stay is completed.\n--Following release from a hospital, or from a nursing home or hospital\nconvalescent section, the patient will be entitled to 100 home-health visits by nurses\nor other health workers, who will provide certain services which they are trained\nto give, including such things as speech therapy, if required.\n-After the patient has paid the first $20 of the cost of outpatient\ndiagnostic tests in a hospital, the Government will pick up the tab for 80 per cent\nof the costs of the tests for each 20-day period of testing.\nThis in essence is what the Medicare plan will do, as it now stands.\n-15-\nWhat Medicare Does NOT Do\nAs previously mentioned, the plan does not pay for doctors' bills or\nsurgeons' charges, or for drugs outside the hospital.\nIn addition, it does not cover the charges of radiologists,\nanesthesiologists, pathologists or psychiatrists.\nA private room will be paid for only if the patient's condition requires\nhim to be isolated, for example, because of a contagious disease. If he wants a\nprivate room for comfort, he must pay the extra charge over the beyond the cost\nof a semi-private room.\nIf he wants a television set in the room, he will have to pay for the rental.\nIf he needs a blood transfusion, he will be charged for the first three pints\ngiven him unless he can arrange with donors to replace the blood.\nThese conditions surrounding the Medicare plan have been spelled out\nby the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. There are others. But they\ngive an idea of the \"red tape\" involving the plan. The red tape will be multiplied\nas regulations are issued governing the admission of persons to hospitals, the\ntransfer of persons to nursing homes or convalescent quarters, and the other\nbenefit provisions.\nThe Supplementary Insurance Plan\nThe 1965 Social Security Act contains a supplement to the Medicare\nplan which establishes a modified form of medical insurance on a voluntary basis.\nThis supplementary arrangement, described by the law as \"Plan B,\" provides for\npayment of 80 per cent of the cost of the following services after the patient puts\nup the first $50 of cost in any calendar year:\n-16-\nDoctors' bills and surgeons' charges, and the fees of radiologists,\nanesthesiologists, pathologists and psychiatrists.\n--Home health services up to 100 visits a year without a requirement\nof prior hospitalization.\n--A variety of other medical and health services, including diagnostic\ntests; surgical dressings, splints, casts and the like; rental of medical equipment,\nsuch as oxygen tents and iron lungs; prosthetic devices which replace all or part\nof an internal body organ; braces and artificial legs, arms and eyes, and ambulance\nservices within limitations.\nThis plan is open to persons 65 and over if they sign up for it, and pay\na premium of $3 per month. The Federal Government pays an equal amount.\nLike the Medicare plan, this plan goes into effect July 1, 1966. However, to\nparticipate, a person should sign up well in advance.\nThe medical insurance plan was not a part of the Medicare plan as\nproposed by the Johnson Administration. However, it was accepted by the\nAdministration and incorporated in the 1965 Social Security Act after Republicans\nin the House of Representatives proposed a comprehensive alternative to the\nMedicare plan intended to take care of doctors' bills and surgeons' fees as well as\nhospital and nursing home costs. Apparently, the Administration began to realize\nsome of the weaknesses in the Medicare plan.\nThus the one plan provided for in the Social Security Act that covers\ndoctors' bills and surgeons' fees was the outgrowth of a Republican proposal.\n-17-\nMedicare was Oversold\nObviously, the Administration and other advocates of Medicare oversold\nit in their eagerness to jam it through Congress. There is bound to be confusion\nas older people undertake to find out what they can do, and what they cannot do under\nit, and what it will pay for and what they must pay for.\nProblems in Medicare\nIn order to make Medicare work, there are certain problems that must\nbe anticipated and dealt with.\nOne problem almost sure to be encountered is a tendency toward over-\nutilization of facilities on the part of many persons who may be misled to believe\nthat they are suddenly eligible for free Government-paid hospital care. Over-\nutilization of facilities will have an important bearing on the cost of the Medicare\nplan, and on the quality of medical care.\nThe tendency toward over-utilization was revealed by our experience\nin Colorado after the State established its old-age pension medical plan in 1957.\nThe cost in a relatively short time exceeded expectations, and I suspect that we\nhave not begun to discover yet what Medicare is going to cost. A major reason is\nthat we do not know to what extent facilities will be utilized.\nAbout the time that the 1965 Social Security Act became law, the United\nStates News and World Report carried an article on Medicare in which it said:\n\"Medical care in this country is headed for a real crisis\n\"Investigation shows that the medical machinery of this nation is not\nnow geared to take care of the increased demand for medical care that seems\nsure to follow.\n-18-\n\"Shortages of many kinds will be encountered. The shortages will\nbe acute in the supply of nurses and nursing homes. Here will be the worst crisis.\n\"Hospitals will be taxed to capacity -- and beyond, in many localities\nin the nation.\n\"Large areas and many communities will be short of physicians and\nsurgeons. More dieticians, physical therapists, technologists and medical workers\nof many other kinds will be needed.\n\"As a result, medical care for all persons can be expected to suffer -- at\nleast temporarily.\"\nDr. John H. Knowles, General Director of the Massachusetts General\nHospital in Boston, was quoted by the article as follows:\n\"When a patient comes to our hospital for treatment under this federal\nprogram, we've got to find out if he is really eligible. Is he actually 65 or older?\nWhere has he been treated before? Why is he here? Has he already used up his\neligibility at a nursing home and is he coming back to a hospital to get renewal of\nhis nursing-home privileges, and so forth?\n\"These are things the hospital is going to have to assume responsibility\nfor. It means we're going to have to hire more people in the administration of the\nhospital to carry out the rules and regulations of 'Big Brother' -- the federal\nbureaucracy. It will mean the addition of more social workers. We're going to\nhave to expand the accounting department. All this is going to increase the cost\nof medical care.\"\nWhether or not these predictions come true remains to be seen. But,\nsince Medicare was oversold to the public, I think we should begin to deal with the\nproblem of possible over-utilization of facilities, and the accompanying burden that\nwill be imposed on medical personnel.\n-19-\nThe Problem of Hospital Facilities\nIn order to implement the Medicare program, at least in some degree,\nI proposed when the program became law that the funds for hospital construction\nunder the Hill-Burton Act be increased by $10 million.\nAt that time, I pointed out that Congress, having enacted the Medicare\nplan, had a responsibility to deal with the problems which it would create, and\nthat one of these problems would be hospital facilities, which were already jammed\nand crowded in many places and entirely incapable of handling the additional\nburdens which the plan would impose.\nNo action was taken at the 1965 session of Congress to increase hospital\nconstruction funds to anticipate the added demands resulting from Medicare.\nHowever, one of the Administration leaders, Senator Lister Hill of Alabama,\nacknowledged that the problem existed, and that action would have to be taken to\ndeal with it.\nFirst Step toward Socialized Medicine\nWhat the future course of Medicare will be is highly uncertain. It is a\nfirst step toward the establishment in the United States of a socialized medical\nsystem such as that in England and some other countries. Its chief sponsors\nlong have been sympathetic to government-controlled medicine, and they look upon\nMedicare as a beginning. They have announced their determination to expand it in\ngradual stages in future years.\nThe cost of the plan as it stands is practically certain to be much greater\nthan the original predictions. If it is expanded, the cost will rise proportionately.\n-20-\nA long-range problem created by the Medicare plan is the effect\nit will have on the Social Security System. One of the primary reasons why I\nopposed the plan is that it adds an uncertain and increasing burden to\nSocial Security.\nI have been a consistent supporter of the Social Security System, and\nhave always voted for measures which would increase Social Security benefits.\nEffect of Inflation on Elderly\nAs is generally known, I think, increases in benefits have been voted\nperiodically to keep pace with inflation, which has boosted prices which consumers\npay and lowered the value of the dollar. But the increase in benefits voted by\nCongress have not kept pace with inflation for many years.\nFor example, the 1965 Social Security Act provided for a general increase\nin Social Security benefits of seven per cent. This was the first general increase\nsince 1958. But the increase in the cost of living, according to the consumer price\nindex issued by the Department of Labor, has been nearer 10 per cent in that\nseven-year period.\nThus, the average person receiving Social Security benefits has been\nlosing ground in the race against inflation.\nIn fact, the average Social Security benefit, even after the 1965 increase,\nwill not buy as much as the average benefit paid in 1954.\nHere we have a basic clue to a great deal of the financial difficulties which\nour older citizens are experiencing. Inflation, the Great Swindler, particularly of\npeople living on fixed incomes, is steadily eating away at the value of their dollars.\nLife insurance declines in value. Annuities decline in value. All due to inflation.\nAnd inflation is the direct result of the spending policies of the Federal Government,\nthe deficit-financing that year after year boosts the public debt to a new record figure.\n-21-\nThis in general is the benefit side of the picture. Let us look at the\ncost side.\nSocial Security Taxes Rise\nThe 1965 Social Security Act provides for a big jump in the Social\nSecurity payroll tax. This increase takes two forms: A boost in rates, and an\nadvance in the total yearly wages or salaries subject to the tax. A substantial\npart of the increase is intended to pay the cost of Medicare for persons either\ndrawing Social Security benefits, or eligible for benefits.\nThe tax rate will be advanced, beginning in 1966 and continuing gradually\nuntil 1987, in that year, the rate will be 5.65 per cent on the taxable portion of the\nwages or salaries of each worker, and his employer will have to pay the same rate\nand amount. Meanwhile, the taxable portion of wages and salaries is raised from\n$4,800 a year to $6,600 a year, beginning in 1966.\nThus, we are to have a total tax of 11.3 per cent on the first $6,600\nearned by each worker every year.\nSenator Abraham A. Ribicoff, Democrat of Connecticut, told a\nCongressional Committee when he was Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare\nin the Kennedy Administration, that the payroll tax should not be raised above 10 per cent.\nHe regarded this figure as the maximum for safety, because he was afraid that\nresistance would develop against the tax if it were boosted above this level.\nBut all thought of a \"danger point\" in the tax burden has now been\nabandoned.\n-22-\nSome elderly persons who have paid little, or nothing, in the way of\nSocial Security taxes will receive a break, of course, under the Medicare plan.\nBut it should be remembered that what these people have not paid will have to\nbe borne by those now in the work force and paying taxes, and those who will\nbe entering the work force.\nThere is nothing really free here. Somebody is going to have to pay the\nbill.\nThe worker who earned $6,600 in 1965 paid $174.00 in Social Security\ntax, and his employer matched that amount. This worker will have to pay $277.20\nin 1966. He will have to pay $372.90 in 1987, unless the tax is raised to a still\nhigher level, as very likely will happen.\nIn some cases, the Social Security tax will be a great deal higher than\nthe federal income tax.\nFor example, a married couple with two children and an income of\n$3,600 a year now pays $88 a year in federal income tax. Under the 1965 Social\nSecurity Act, he will pay $151.20 in Social Security tax in 1966, and more as the\ntax increases automatically in later years. Eventually, his Social Security tax\nwill reach $203.40 a year on an annual income of $3,600.\nThe old principle that a man should be taxed according to his ability\nto pay has disappeared entirely here.\nHigh Taxes for Young People\nTake the case of a young man of 23 entering the work force for the first\ntime in 1966. Let us assume that he earns $6,600 or more a year until he retires\nat the age of 65, and of course many of them actually will do that, particularly\nthe college graduates.\n-23-\nUnder the Social Security taxes now established, he will pay a total\nof $15,054.60 in payroll tax during his working career. His employer will pay\nan equal amount. Thus the total tax on his pay during his working career will\nbe $30,109.20.\nThis figure will be much higher if interest at an annual rate of, say,\nfour per cent is included. In fact, Robert J. Myers, the Chief Actuary of the\nSocial Security Administration, has said that if interest at this rate is figured in,\nthe contributions of a new entrant into Social Security and his employer will be well\nin excess of $80,000, provided his earnings are at the maximum level and he\nremains covered for 45 years.\nFrom these figures, we may see just where our efforts to give somebody\nsomething free have led us. For these new entrants, there is not going to be\nanything free, or even partially free. For them, the equalization process has\nalready begun.\nNow, there is no question that substantial taxes will have to be paid to\nsupport the Social Security System in coming years, without the added burden of\nMedicare. Actually, there are certain improvements that should be made in the\nSocial Security benefit system, as I intend to point out later. These improvements\nmay well necessitate some increase in the tax.\nImportant to keep Social Security Solvent\nWhat is necessary in the way of taxes we should embrace gladly,\nbecause it is highly important that Social Security be kept solvent and operative.\nHowever, we should be aware of the direction in which the pell-mell\nadvocates of government-dominated medicine are leading us. And that direction\nraises serious questions about the continuing solvency of Social Security.\n-24-\nLet's look at a few financial facts.\nThe Social Security Old Age Trust Fund contains at the present time\nabout $20 billion, and the Disability Benefits Trust Fund about $2 billion.\nWhile these are enormous sums, it must be remembered that\nexpenditures by the old age fund in the current 1966 fiscal year are expected to\ntotal $18.6 billion, and by the disability fund $1.7 billion. Thus these funds\nonly have enough money to keep them going a little more than a year.\nThis shows that the Social Security System is now operating pretty much\non a hand-to-mouth or pay-as-you-go basis. If a life insurance company operated\nthat way, it would be violating the law. A life insurance company is required\nto keep sufficient funds on hand so that, if its operations are terminated, it will\nbe able to pay off all the accrued liabilities.\nSocial Security now Billions in the red\nOn January 1, 1962, the Social Security trust funds had commitments\nto pay $625 billion in old age and disability benefits to persons eligible for benefits\nat that time.\nIt was estimated at the time that the funds would collect from workers\nthen on the rolls and their employers $282 billion before all these workers retired.\nIn addition, the funds had, as now, about $22 billion on hand.\nThis was the Social Security balance sheet, therefore, at that time:\n$625 billion owed; $304 billion expected in taxes and in money on hand; deficit,\n$321 billion, a figure actually greater than the public debt.\nHow can this deficit be made up, you may ask. In only one of two ways,\nby newcomers to the rolls and their employers paying in more than the newcomers\nwill receive in benefits, or by diverting mo ney from the general fund of the Treasury.\n-25-\nAnd this diversion could amount to a formidable additional burden on the taxpayer.\nYou may also ask how large the deficit has grown as a result of the\npassage of the 1965 law. No one knows as of this time, because the figure has\nnot been calculated. But it is sure to be much greater.\nEventually, it may be discovered that a mistake was made when\nMedicare was saddled on the Social Security System.\nThere is no question that continuing attention must be given by government\nto the problems and needs of our older citizens.\nAn effort must be made to come up with the best answers, and not\njust political answers.\nThe enactment of the Medicare plan has not solved the problem of\nhealth care for older people, as I have already indicated and as will become amply\napparent later. It will be necessary to review this problem from time to time.\nOther plans for action will be coming along in a wide range of fields.\nHelp for the Elderly that will help\nI would like to indicate my reaction to the entire problem, and to point\nto some of the things that I think should be done.\nThe measures that should be taken, in my judgment, should be directed\ntoward maintaining the dignity, the independence, and the individual responsibility\nof our older citizens instead of making them dependent on a super-government\ndirected from Washington.\nObviously, a basic problem of older people is inadequate incomes. There\nare certain things that government can do to improve the income position of the\nelderly. If these things are done, there will be less for special programs to meet\nspecific needs.\n-26-\nCurb Inflation\nNo greater help could be extended to older people than to apply brakes\nto the inflation that ha S reduced the purchasing power of the dollars they have.\nThis could be done by a better management of government, and a curb on\nextravagant spending policies that have produced continued deficit-financing.\nBut there are other things that could be done.\nSocial Security benefits should be increased to compensate for the cost-\nof-living increase that have occurred in recent years. This would give older\npeople a better chance to take care of their own wants in their own way.\nThe Social Security System should be made more flexible. At present,\nif a person over 65 keeps on working and does not draw Social Security benefits,\nhe gets nothing for saving the Government money. At the same time, he continues\nto pay the Social Security payroll tax. This is manifestly unfair. He should receive\nan actuarily sound increase in benefits for each year after 65 that he fails to\ndraw benefits.\nAllow an Older Person to Earn More\nThere should be a further increase in the amount an older person can\nearn without losing his Social Security benefits. The 1965 Social Security Act\ndid something in this direction, but not enough. What seems a more equitable\nplan is to allow a person to receive up to a stated sum, say $3,600 a year, in\ncombined benefits and earnings before losing any part of his benefits.\nThe minimum Social Security benefit for a retired worker should be\nincreased further. The 1965 Act raised it from $40 to $44 a month. It should be\nappreciably increased to give a better break to those in the lowest income levels.\n-27-\nThese changes may well require some further increases in the Social\nSecurity tax, as I indicated previously, although by no means as great as those\nnecessary to support the Medicare plan. However, the changes are in the\ninterest of equity for a great many of our older citizens. To the extent that tax\nincreases are necessary, they should be made to maintain the solvency of the system.\nA major problem with regard to income maintenance for older persons\nis the growing tendency toward retirement of persons at 65, or even at an earlier\nage, often as a requirement of pension systems in effect in private establishments.\nIn my judgment, this whole area should be the subject of an objective and\ncomprehensive study by a well-qualified group of persons, who would make\nrecommendations for dealing with the problem. This study should include some\nmeans of encouraging the transfer of pensions from one employment to another,\nso that a person who changed jobs could do so without losing what he had built\nup toward an annuity in the previous job.\nIf the tendency toward early retirement of older persons still able to\nwork were slowed down or reversed, a substantial part of the burden on the Social\nSecurity System would be lifted, and its financial problems relieved.\nAside from measures to increase the income position of older persons,\nthe Federal Government should stimulate construction of housing for elderly\npersons by private non-profit organizations through the use of the mortgage\ninsurance facilities of the Federal Housing Administration.\nRemove Crippling Rules on Housing\nIn particular, the crippling administrative directives issued in the latter\npart of 1963 which have stifled new projects under Section 231 of the Federal\nHousing Act should be removed.\n-28-\nBecause of provisions of law adopted in the Eisenhower Administration,\nthis program proved highly successful in meeting the housing needs of growing\nnumbers of elderly persons.\nUp until the crippling directives were issued, projects under this\nsection were already built or planned to provide 44,000 dwelling units for older\npersons at a cost of more than $650 million, and at no expense to the Federal\nGovernment, not even for administrative purposes.\nThe churches in particular suddenly found themselves up against a\nroadblock.\nSome church homes for the elderly have used for years a \"founder's fee\"\nfor many of their residents as a device for financing in part home capital and\noperation costs. Under this approach, the person on entering the home makes a\nlump-sum payment and receives a commitment from the home to care for him\nthe rest of his life, either at a specific rate or without additional cost.\nBut in August, 1963, the Government housing agency in Washington\nissued a new requirement that, to receive mortgage insurance for a new church\nhome, the church would have to furnish a \"legally enforceable guarantee\" that the\nhome would live up to their commitment to care for such a person for the rest\nof his life.\nNow there was no justification in experience for such a requirement.\nIt was completely unwarranted.\nBut it has effectively blocked churches from starting new projects under\nSection 231, because the complex organizational structure of most churches makes\nit practically impossible for them to meet this requirement.\n-29-\nAnd perhaps that was what the housing administrators in Washington\nwanted.\nThe opinion has been expressed that the actions taken to throttle\nSection 231 were part of an effort by persons in the Government to replace\nvoluntary housing undertakings with projects involving direct use of federal\nfunds, and presumably controls.\nIn other words, the Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance\nsystem doesn't help much to build up a bureaucratic empire. It doesn't provide\na lot of jobs. Therefore, shove it aside, spend the taxpayers' money, and set\nup a system that will provide jobs and that the bureaucrats can dominate.\nBut the problem of housing for older persons, and of sheltered care for\nthose unable to take care of themselves, will not go away because of the designs\nof certain Washington bureaucrats.\nNeed for Sheltered Care for many Older Persons\nThe problem should be faced, and the best answers provided. Direct\nfederal funds may well be necessary to a certain degree. But voluntary actions\nwhich will not cost taxpayer money should be encouraged, not blocked.\nNow I want to turn my attention specifically to the problem of sheltered\ncare for a relatively small percentage of the elderly who need constant and special\ncare on a continuing basis.\nThis includes elderly persons unable to care for themselves because of\nage or permanent disability, and those unable to care for themselves and who\nhave no one to look after them.\n-30-\nFor these people, the Federal Government should help to provide\nfacilities which will be safe and attractive, and which will provide the highest\nquality of service in an environment that will enable them to live in dignity and honor.\nHomes Needed, Not Institutions\nThe most suitable type of facility, in my judgment, is the church-type\nhome. And the home should have medical and nursing facilities to care for the\nresidents during spells of illness.\nSuch homes have decided advantages over nursing homes. In the first\nplace, they are living-oriented rather than patient-oriented. They provide a\nhappier environment, with less disruption of normal living patterns, and less of\na sense of isolation. And a better environment tends to minimize the effect of\nserious illness.\nI believe that many elderly persons who occupy nursing homes could\nbe cared for better and at less cost in homes of this type.\nHowever, Federal and State assistance programs usually put a premium\non illness-oriented needs in a way that often forces recipients into nursing homes.\nFederal assistance to provide church-type homes for elderly persons in\nneed of care should acknowledge State responsibility, and should be undertaken\nin cooperation with States and with non-profit private organizations.\nOther Measures that could be taken\nAside from revival of the Federal Housing Administration mortgage\ninsurance plan for housing and church-type homes for the elderly, it doubtless\nwould be well to:\n-31-\n-- Expand the provisions of the Hill-Burton Act to provide funds\non a matching basis to build church-type homes for the elderly, as well as\nhospitals and nursing homes, as is done now.\nEarnestly consider a plan for federal loan funds to build these\nhomes at an interest rate of three per cent.\nCongress at the 1965 session made extensive provision for loans at\nthree per cent to build housing for elderly persons, for handicapped persons,\nand for so-called \"moderate-income\" families displaced by government action,\nsuch as urban renewal projects and highway construction. These new three per cent\nloans are going to collide with federal loans previously made for a great variety\nof projects at higher interest rates, including the same types of projects now\nto be favored with a lower rate. This whole question should be examined in the\ninterest of equality of treatment.\nIn addition to helping to provide sheltered care facilities for older\npersons in need of care, the Federal Government also should aid the States\nin caring for them.\nHere I think some limitations will have to be required.\nThere should be certain restrictions on eligibility for such care. I would\nsuggest that a person should be eligible if he is 72 or over and in need of care,\nor if he is under 72 and permanently disabled, and over a certain age. This\nminimum age could be 65 in the case of men and 62 in the case of women.\nWhere the person's income is below a stated level, the Federal-State\nprogram, in my judgment, should pay the entire bill for his care. Where the income\nis at a higher level, the person may be required to apply a portion of his income\nto the cost of his care, less a certain amount for his own personal needs, say not\nmore than $40 or $50 a month. Perhaps a ceiling should be placed on the total\n-32-\namount of the Federal-State contribution toward the person's care-- for example,\n$300 a month.\nThese are only suggestions, and of course the details would have to be\nworked out after careful consideration.\nHelp Elderly to maintain Their Independence\nThese proposals, of course, would cost a certain amount of money.\nBut if wisely set up and administered, it would not be wasted money. Measures\nof this kind would meet the varied problems and needs of older people in a way\nsuitable for government action.\nThey would do this while maintaining to the fullest degree the dignity,\nthe traditional independence, and the personal responsibility of our older citizens.\nThey would not make them wards of a super-government in Washington.\nSuch an approach, I am certain, is essential for their welfare and\nfor that of the Nation.\n####\nSenior Citizens\n\"THE OLDER AMERICAN WHITE HOUSE FORUM\"\nA REPORT\nPART I. PRE-CONFERENCE ACTIVITY:\nA. Preliminary Conference Plans\nPreliminary Conference plans provided for a major Conference\nevent to be held in 1970 -- the Older Americans White House\nForum.\nThe Forum concept was intended to accomplish two of the main\nobjectives of the White House Conference on Aging:\n(1) To form a national network of community meetings,\nwhere older persons would be invited to speak to\nthe nation about their needs.\n(2) To arouse public awareness in and concern for\nolder peoples' needs and for the development of\ntheir potential as a national resource.\nThis testimony would be gathered in several ways. First,\nof course, older persons would speak out and their most\npertinent testimony would be recorded. In addition, so\nthat all older persons might express themselves, a ques-\ntionnaire would be administered to each one. Finally,\nolder persons would be invited to submit whatever addi-\ntional statements they might want to make.\nFortunately, as this report will disclose, the Forum\napproach achieved much more than had been expected. As\norganization of Forums proceeded, the Regional Offices and\nState Agencies on Aging discovered that this approach stim-\nulated community organization, providing major support for\nthe State Agency's total program.\nB. Preparatory Work\nThe following is a brief sequential account of preparatory\nwork done for the Older American White House Forums.\nJanuary: During the first weeks of 1970 the Conference\nDirector and a small technical staff developed preliminary\nplans for pre-Conference activity of the Regional Offices\nand State Agencies on Aging.\n2\nFebruary: On February 24 the Conference Director met with\nthe Regional Commissioners of the Social and Rehabilitation\nService. The basic Conference structure was discussed, in-\ncluding the conduct of Community Forums.\nMarch: On March 5-6, 1970, the Associate Regional Commiss-\nioners on Aging and the liaison committee of the National\nAssociation of State Units on Aging met with the Conference\nDirector and his staff to discuss preliminary Conference\nplans. Work began on drafting a Guide for Regional and\nState Activity, intended for use in organizing Older Ameri-\ncans White House Forums.\nApril: Commissioner Martin, as Conference Director, re-\nquested the Regional Commissioners to arrange regional meet-\nings of the staffs of State Agencies on Aging, for the pur-\npose of briefing them on preliminary Conference plans, es-\npecially the organization and conduct of Forums. The first\ntwo regional meetings were held in San Francisco and Atlanta\nin late April. Work proceeded on the Guide for Regional and\nState Activity as specific plans for the Community Forums\nwere developed.\nMay: Three more regional meetings were held in New York City,\nDallas and Minneapolis.\nJune: Two other regional meetings were held with State\nAgencies on Aging as soon as they could be arranged by the\nRegional Commissioners. These were in Providence, Rhode\nIsland and Boise, Idaho.\nCommissioner Martin wrote to each Governor, describing\npreliminary Conference plans and specifically requesting\neach Governor to:\n(1) Issue a call for a State White House Conference on\nAging at an appropriate date in the month of May,\n1971.\n(2) Disignate the Executive Director of the State Unit\non Aging to be responsible for total coordination\nof all White House Conference on Aging activities\nin the State.\n(3) Appoint a White House Conference on Aging Committee\nas an advisory group to the State Unit.\n(4) Appoint an interdepartmental Committee to work with\nthe State Unit on Aging.\n(5) Mobilize legislative and departmental support for\nthe White House Conference on Aging.\n3\nIncluded with the letter were a copy of the Conference Call\nby President Nixon and a copy of the Fact Sheet.\nNear the end of May, draft copies of the Guide for Regional\nand State Activity were mailed to the Regional Offices and State\nAgencies on Aging for review and comment.\nIn response to a request from Commissioner Martin other\nFederal agencies began to contact their field offices through-\nout the nation encouraging them to participate in Forum acti-\nvity.\nOn June 12, Commissioner Martin wrote all members of the\nCongress, informing them of plans for Regional and State\nActivity.\nThe Conference technical staff arranged to have a quanti-\nty of questionnaires produced by the American Rehabilitation\nFoundation for use at the Community Forums.\nJuly: The final regional meetings were held in Chicago and\nWashington, D. C. The Dallas Regional Office requested a\nsecond meeting which was held July 8.\nThe completed Guide for Regional and State Activity was\ndistributed in quantity to the State Agencies on Aging. This\nGuide dealt largely with general State organization and sug-\ngestions for organizing Community Forums. It was distribu-\nted in xeroxed form, since time did not permit printing.\nThe staff participated in five orientation sessions in-\nvolving over three-hundred national organizations. Follow-\ning these meetings, some of these organizations began sup-\nplying staff rosters and membership lists. The Conference\nstaff arranged to supply this material to the State Agencies\non Aging.\nThe State Agencies on Aging began submitting orders for\nquantities of questionnaires and Conference brochures.\nAugust: As interest increased, it became apparent that\nmore communities wished to hold Community Forums than had\nbeen expected. Many national organizations were becoming\ninvolved, as a result of the July briefing sessions. The\n4\nState Agencies on Aging, working with small budgets and in-\nadequate staff, could not be expected to work closely with\nthis many communities. A decision was made to produce ma-\nterial which would enable communities to conduct Community\nForums without direct staff assistance.\nEarly in August the Conference staff distributed a\nlarge quantity of (1) \"A Self-Guide for Groups Organizing\nand Conducting Older Americans White House Forums for Re-\nporting the Results of the Forums to the State Agency on\nAging.\"\nIn late August some State Agencies on Aging began con-\nducting orientation sessions for their Community Forum\nleaders.\nOn August 24, the American Rehabilitation Foundation be-\ngan shipping 1,200,000 questionnaires to the State Agencies\non Aging.\nSeptember: During early September, more State Agencies on\nAging held orientation sessions for Community Forum leaders.\nAs the Forum week approached, State Agencies on Aging were\nbesieged with requests for additional material, especially\nquestionnaires. Reports indicate that, in addition to the\noriginal 1,200,000, another 500,000 questionnaires were\nprinted and distributed by the States.\nA Tabulating Form was distributed to the State Agencies\nfor tallying the results of Forum activity.\nPART II. OLDER AMERICAN WHITE HOUSE FORUM ACTIVITY\nA. Tabulation of Forum Results\nAs of November 19, the State Agencies on Aging have re-\nported that they have conducted more than 6,000 Older\nAmericans White House Forums. Most of these were held\nduring the week of September 20-26; However, some States\nare continuing to hold Forums as more communities ask to\nbe involved in White House Conference activity.\nWhite House Forums were conducted in each of the fifty\nStates, as well as in the several territories. Partici-\n5\npating in these Forums was a wide array of older persons,\nbroadly representative of racial, ethnic, cultural, eco-\nnomic and religious groups, and widely characteristic of\nthe rural and urban areas. Also, the Forums were attend-\ned by \"listeners\", who represented a cross-section of\nproviders of services, local, State and national legisla-\ntive figures, government officials, and other community\nleaders.\nThe White House Forums were of varied size. Many were\nheld on a neighborhood basis and were attended by small\nnumbers of people. Others were conducted in larger\nareas, such as counties, legislative districts, or other\nregions corresponding to state planning formulas.\nThe locale of individual Forums was equally varied, with\nmeetings being held in such places as senior centers,\ncivic auditoriums, fraternal and service clubs buildings,\nchurches and synagogues, individual homes, professional\noffice suites, public housing projects, nursing homes,\nretirement villages, tribal houses on Indian reservations,\nschools, and many others. In at least one case, a Forum\nwas conducted by the older inmates of a state peniten-\ntiary.\nThe following is (1) a list showing distribution of\nForums by State, and (2) a Summary of most frequently\nmentioned \"Needs of Older Persons\" based on early reports\nfrom 25 States.\nThis report is based on reports from the individual States.\nWhile it is reasonably accurate, it is not necessarily\ncomplete.\nSome Forums were held by individual organizations and\nneighborhood groups which did not provide attendance\nfigures to the State Agency on Aging.\nA number of Forums were held prior to September; since\nthese did not utilize the national \"needs\" questionnaire,\nthey were not included in the States' reports. However,\nmany recorded statements on the needs of older persons.\nMany States report that Forums are still being held and wil 1\ncontinue to be held through the remaining weeks of 1970.\nI DISTRIBUTION OF FORUMS BY STATES\nNumber of\nForums\nTOTALS\n1. Alabama\n119\n2. Alaska\n20\n3. Arizona\n65\n4. Arkansas\n210\n5. California\n800\n6. Colorado\n118\n7. Connecticut\n15\n8. Delaware\n1\n9. District of Columbia\n2\n10. Florida\n89\n11. Georgia\n162\n12. Hawaii\n4\n13. Idaho\n108\n14. Illinois\n210\n15. Indiana\n118\n16. Iowa\n18\n17. Kansas\n8\n18. Kentucky\n118\n19. Louisiana\n276\n20. Maine\n60\n21. Maryland\n251\n22. Massachusetts\n10\n23. Michigan\n162\n24. Minnesota\n11\n25. Mississippi\n62\n26. Missouri\n175\n27. Montana\n14\n28. Nebraska\n8\n29. Nevada\n7\n30. New Hampshire\n16\n31. New Jersey\n23\n32. New Mexico\n86\n33. New York\n10\n34. North Carolina\n128\n35. North Dakota\n8\n36. Ohio\n414\n37. Oklahoma\n157\n38. Oregon\n92\n39. Pennsylvania\n111\n40. Rhode Island\n9\n41. South Carolina\n41\n42. South Dakota\n91\n43. Tennessee\n223\n44. Texas\n825\n45. Utah\n127\n46. Vermont\n10\n47. Virginia\n40\n48. Washington\n18\n49. West Virginia\n307\n50. Wisconsin\n25\n51. Wyoming\n15\n52. Guam\n1\n53. Puerto Rico\n68\n54. Virgin Islands\n3\nPHS. 24. 4\nSTATISTICAL WORK SHEET\nREV. 10.64\n6\nSummary of Most Frequently Mentioned \"MOST IMPORTANT NEEDS\"\nINCOME\nNeed increased income\nRaise Social Security Benefits\nWidow Social Security Benefits should be equal to husband's\nLower age limit for receiving full Social Security Benefits\nRemove income limits which affect amount of Social Security\nBenefits\nLiberalize rules and regulations for eligibility for Welfare\nBenefits\nMore consultative service regarding services and benefits to\nwhich older persons are entitled\nMedicare coverage should be more inclusive\nAmend Medicaid eligibility requirements\nTransferable pensions\nAll pensions should be exempt from taxes\nTax reduction (all kinds-Property, School Income, Utilities)\nReduced cost of living (i.e., medical costs, food, housing,\net al)\nWage and price controls to curb inflation\n7\nSPIRITUAL WELL-BEING\nMore interest in and direct concern for, older people by churches\n- More pastoral visitation, especially to sick, lonely and\nshut-ins\n- Specialized services for counseling during crisis, grief,\nillness, and hardships. In other words, perhaps a crisis\nclinic for needy, etc.\n- Programs and activities geared to special needs and in-\nterest of elderly.\n- Transportation for those able to attend services and pro-\ngrams or arrangements to \"take the church\" to those unable\nto attend.\n- Designate a special Sunday or other days for Senior Citi-\nzens observances.\n- More opportunity for older people to offer useful service\nto the church.\nEDUCATION\nPre-retirement education\nRetirement Planning (especially for those already retired)\nInformation and referral centers to provide assistance to\nOP who seek services to meet their needs (all kinds)\nBroader curriculum offerings for OP - such as adult educa-\ntion programs to include wide range of subjects (politics,\nhome management, home economics, finances, wills and es-\ntates, arts, crafts.,)\nVocational re-training\nSpecial educational programs geared to special needs of OP\n8\nProvide educational opportunities for shut-ins\n(e.g., audio-visuals for nursing homes residents, hospital-\nized)\nMore and better training for those who provide services to\nOP\nImprove public education programs about the elderly\n(include in public school curriculums courses on gerontology)\nGovernment bodies need to be especially educated about needs\nof OP\nNUTRITION\nReduced costs of foods\nImproved consumer education for older persons: shopping tips,\nhow to avoid frauds, what are best buys, nutritional value of\nfoods.\nEducation on proper meal preparation and general home econo-\nmics.\nTruth in labeling and packaging, including provision for\nsmaller quantities of foods as well as packaging special\nfoods with older people in mind.\nImprove and broaden food stamp program.\nSubsidized meal opportunities in public places, such as res-\ntaurants.\nMeal delivery program for shut-ins (Community meal services)\nNeed for low-cost retirement institutions offering board and\nroom.\nImproved diets for residents of special care institutions.\nInclusion of shared dining opportunities in congregate living\nsettings.\n9\nTRANSPORTATION\nNeed improved transportation systems (routes, time schedule, rural\nservice, weekends and holidays)\nReduced fares, or cost-free use, on all forms of public trans-\nportation.\nImproved safety standards on public transportation, as well as\npedestrian safety.\nMake tax deductible those transportation costs which are related\nto procuring health care and meeting other special needs.\nSpecial provision by organizations or governmental groups for\ntransportation to meet needs of older people for such things\nas shopping field trips, errands, emergencies, religious and\nsocial services, health care.\nMandatory retirement at age 65 is unfair. Let retirement be\noptional, flexible, and graduated.\nProvide the mechanism for a gradual withdrawal from the labor\nforce as desired.\nIncrease employment opportunities, both full-time and part-time\n(as a means to increase income, as well as to provide meaning-\nful and useful activity in order to maintain self-respect).\nImproved and additional job-training and placement services,\nespecially for those with special needs and who suffer job\nloss due to mandatory retirment, disability, or skill obso-\nlescence.\nEnforcement of age and sex discrimination laws especially re-\nlated to older persons. (Also with regard to practices of\nInsurance companies)\nLiberalize and remove restrictions of income amount for Social\nSecurity and other old-age benefits eligibility.\nProvide commercial outlet for sales of items produced by\nolder persons.\n10\nHEALTH\nReduced health costs (all kinds: physicians, hospital,\ndrugs, special equipment).\nAllow as tax deductible full cost of health-related expenses\nImprove Medicare and Medicaid programs to be more inclu-\nsive of coverage. (especially drugs, physical examina-\ntions, dental, hearing and other special apparatus)\nDisabled at any age should be eligible for Medicare.\nTo include chiropractors under Medicare\nImproved and additional psychiatric care services\nImproved and additional institutional care, facilities and\nstaff\nAdditional intermediate health care facilities\nProvide and improve health education-information centers and\nconsultation services\nProvide home services for those unable to care for themselves,\nas well as for those who wish to, or should, remain indepen-\ndent in own quarters.\nImproved and additional out-patient/clinics, (screening and\ntreatment clinics)\nMore and better professionally trained health care personnel,\nespecially in nursing homes and special institutions, also\nimproved diets, social services, recreational opportunities\nin those settings)\nSimplify complicated red tape procedures related to Medicare\nand Medicaid and other related legal technicalities.\nRemove \"use as directed\" labels from drugs and provide\nmore specific direction.\n11\nHOUSING\nReduced housing costs:\n- liberalize limitations for eligibility in public\nhousing projects and other low-income housing projects;\n- rent control in non-public housing (private sector) in\nwhich older persons dwell;\n- older people to be exempt from property and school\ntaxes\nAdditional housing for low and moderate income groups, with\nspecial consideration toward variety of types, conveniences\nof location, and inclusion of design features and special\nequipment geared to needs of the elderly. Also, multi-\npurpose facilities and services should be incorporated in\nsuch programs.\nImprovement of existing housing facilities which older peo-\nple occupy, (including enforcement of safety and health\ncodes by appropriate government authority).\nInformation center, or other means of publicity, of hous-\navailable for older people.\nOpportunity for housing providing options for congregate\ncooking and/or proximity to cross-section age groups for\nsocial interaction.\nImprove nursing home facilities, with lower rates, better\ndiets, sympathetic competent staff, preservation of dignity\nand privacy;\nFoster homes for older people with special needs.\nProvide home maintenance services, and/or provide maintenance\nallowances for recipients of public assistance.\n12\nROLES AND ACTIVITIES\nMore centers and clubs for older people (plus expansion of\nexisting programs to provide for:\n-social contacts and companionship\n-recreational opportunities\n-educational opportunities, trips, group discussion\n-interaction with other age groups\nMore, specific, services for shut-ins (such as social-\nrecreational programs for nursing home residents and others\nwith physical or mental disabilities).\nSociety should be better educated and informed about aged\npersons and process of growing old.\n-\"there should be more public acceptance of retirees\"\n-need pre-retirement planning programs and retirement\ncounseling services\nMore opportunities for older people to be \"doers\" and not just\n\"receivers:\"\n-training in volunteer work\n-opportunities to remain or become politically active\n-\"to feel important and be useful\" there should be\ncreated variety of programs to accomplish this accord-\ning to needs, abilities and interests.\nIncreased funding support of such items as listed above.\nIncreased publicity of services and program for older\npeople.\n13\nPRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF FORUM ACTIVITY\nThe over-all goal of the 1971 White House Conference on\nAging, to develop a more realistic and comprehensive national\npolicy for older Americans, was inherent in the concept and\norganization of Older American Community Forums during the\nPrologue Year 1970 when \"Older Americans Speak To The\nNation. To that end, the specific goals of the Forums and\ntheir successful achievement constituted the first impor-\ntant phase of the White House Conference.\nAn analysis of Forum activity reveals dramatic evidence of\nearly and far-reaching effects and their significance for\nsubsequent phases of Conference planning. The specific\ngoals of the Forums, as delineated in the \"Guide for\nRegional and State Activity\" were:\n1. \"Increasing public awareness of older people and their\ncircumstances and involving significant numbers of\nolder persons must be dominant in this year's activity.\"\nIt is realistic to believe that the forums have resulted\nin \"increasing public awareness.\" There is evidence of\nthis from several sources: the massive nationwide news\ncoverage before and after the Forums; the involvement of\nnational organizations with many of them having large\nmemberships; the cooperation and interest shown by other\nFederal agencies; the frequent requests from members of\nCongress for information on the progress of the Confer-\nence.\n\"Significant numbers of older persons\" were involved in\nthe Forums. More than half a million older people par-\nticipated in over 6,000 Community Forums.\nTheir testimony was further recorded as they filled out\nNeeds Questionnaires, which were collected and sent to a\ncomputer organization for processing. Hundreds of the\nQuestionnaires were mailed to Commissioner Martin,\nalong with many personal letters as well. In four cases,\ntape recordings of Forum testimony were forwarded to the\nCommissioner. The results of testimony were also com-\npiled in many States, showing a tabulation of the \"most\nimportant needs\" identified by the Forums' participants.\n14\n2. \"To achieve the objective of strengthening community\norganization for aging as a major result of the Confer-\nence, early community involvement is essential. \"\nNo where was the success of Forum activity more evident\nthan in the willingness and ability of the States and\nlocal communities to cooperatively initiate and coordi-\nnate the Forum events. In many places, the framework\nfor such organization was already existing, and thereby\nwas effectively utilized and reenforced throughout the\nplanning and conducting of Forums. When a community de-\ncided to hold a community Forum it was necessary to set\nup a committee to organize the Forum. These committees\ncan be used not only for future Conference activity,\nbut also for developing other programs for the aging in\nthe local communities. Such a network of communications\nand planning, along with hundreds of new personal con-\ntacts among community leaders, officials, and citizens-\nat-large, will, we hope, certainly strengthen the effec-\ntiveness of community organization for purposes far\nbeyond those exclusively related to the situation of\nolder persons. Most apparent, however, is the fact that\nnow the way is paved for planning and implementing the\nremaining White House Conference events toward a suc-\ncessful conclusion.\n3. \"Conference activity in 1970 must support the develop-\nment of a realistic national policy for the older pop-\nulation. \"\nThe overall goal for the 1971 White House Conference on\nAging is the development of a \"National Policy on\nAging. \" The first step towards that goal was the parti-\ncipation of significant numbers of older persons in the\nCommunity Forums. That this first step was accomplished\nis evident from the numbers of Forums held and the large\nnumbers of older persons who participated.\nThe collation of data resulting from the Forums, along\nwith data from other sources, will serve as documentary\nevidence to authenticate the critical needs of today's\nolder Americans. This data will further serve as a\nfoundation for the formulation of recommendations which\nemerge through the refining process of Community and\nState White House Conferences in early 1971, and more\nresolutely from the national White House Conference\nitself in November-December 1971.\n15\nPRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF OTHER EFFECTS OF FORUM ACTIVITY\nThe analysis of Forum-related activity further includes a re-\nview of other effects which cannot be contained or measured\nin the data-gathering process. Such effects are consonant\nwith the goals of the total White House Conference concept.\nThe more striking positive effects may be summarized as\nfollows:\n1. Stimulation of Government Interest and Participation\n(a) Federal\nThe Federal government, through its many agencies\nand departments across the nation, (particularly\nat national and regional levels), was called upon\nto lend its assistance to many of the activities\nrelated to organizing and coordinating Community\nForums.\nAdministrators, staff members, and members of\nCongress also participated in Forum events as\n\"official listeners\" when testimony was given by\nolder persons.\n(b) State\nThe Governors, and particularly the State Agencies\non Aging, were enlisted in the early stages of\nplanning for White House Conference activities in\ntheir states. The participation of members of\nState legislative bodies, other officials, and\nstaff personnel of State agencies, departments\nand special projects, was also an essential con-\ntribution to the success of Forum activity.\n(c) Local\nMunicipal and county officials, through their\nvarious departments and programs, likewise parti-\ncipated to a great degree in the preparatory phases\nand actual Forum event.\n16\nStimulation of the Interest and Participation of Non-\nGovernment Groups and Organizations\nWhat has been stated in the above portion relative to the\nrole of government in Forum activity, may be similarly stated\nabout the important role played by other organizations in the\npublic and private sector.\n(a) Academic Institutions\nThe Administrators, faculty members, and other represen-\ntative of colleges, universities, and other institutions\nof higher learning served in significant capacities by\ndirecting their professional interests and expertise to\nForum activities.\n(b) National Organizations\nThe interest and involvement of nearly 400 national or-\nganizations was attracted and coordinated (and often\ninitiated) through their networks of local chapters.\nThese organizations were widely representative of the\nfields of social services, health and medicine, youth,\nfraternal orders, labor groups, religion, and the like.\n(c) Local Community Organizations\nThere were numberous community-level groups, not re-\nlated to national organizations, which also provided\nthe base of operations for Forum activity to take shape\nand occur. Their initial interest was a strategic fac-\ntor in eliciting an enormous amount of additional in-\nterest where it was otherwise non-existent. Such groups\nwere representative of senior citizen groups, private\nhealth-education-and social service organizations,\nchurches, synagogues, civic affairs groups, neighborhood\nclubs, and community action programs.\nGSA DC 71.6879\nREPUBLICAN\nCONGRESSIONAL\nCOMMITTEE\nNEWSLETTER NOTES\nIdeas for your own newsletter from the\nPUBLIC RELATIONS DIVISION\n312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20003\nLincoln 4-3010\nJune 9, 1972\nSALTING AWAY THE MEGATONS--We've become so accustomed to hearing\nthe terms \"megatons,\" \"MIRV,\" \"ICBM\" and \"nuclear war, that they mean little to our\nconsciousness.\nBut the importance of the SALT agreements can be pointed up by considering\njust what is being talked about. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki\nwere rated at 20,000 tons of TNT (20 kilotons). A megaton is the equivalent of one\nmillion tons of TNT. We've tested devices up to 15 megatons. The Soviets have gone\nup to 50.\nAt this point, our military people have stopped the size race and now are\nconcentrating on smaller missiles with multiple warheads, since they just would not\nrequire the wasted energy of huge nuclear bombs to destroy enemy targets. Our Poseidon\nsubmarine missiles, for instance, contain 10 multiple, independently targeted, re-entry\nvehicles (MIRV), each with a yield three times that which destroyed Hiroshima. In\naddition, we have SCRAM air-to-ground rockets in our B-52 bombers, which can be\nfired 100 miles away from target, and have the force of 10 times the Hiroshima blast.\nRegardless of numbers of big missiles being discussed, the U.S. has a huge store house\nof deliverable megatonnage--lethal, small packages. The Soviets have been building\nup their arsenal, too.\nNuclear war, with this kind of destruction available to both sides, transcends\nfear and approaches the incomprehensible. This is the import of the SALT agreement.\nStopping the buildups is a first step. The next logical step is agreement not to use these\nweapons. This will take time, much negotiating, much relaxation of tensions between\nour people and the Soviet Union.\nLurking in our minds, of course, is the Communist credo of world domination--\nso it will require deeds, not words, for these agreements to stick. But SALT is a start\ndown the road to nuclear disarmament and to the Generation of Peace the President has\nset as a goal.\n***\nOF COMRADES AND CARS--Is bigness badness? There is a growing volume of\nvocal criticism against American industry, aided and abetted by the sensationalism of\nRalph Nader, which attempts to pin all the ills on the economic front on big business.\nThe idea expounded is that because they are big they are bad.\nIt has taken the U.S. two centuries of development to reach today's productive\npinnacle. It betrays shallow thinking to attack U.S. business because it has learned how\nto make goods cheaply. It is easy to find fault. Anything mechanical has its hazards.\nPresident Nixon's visit to Moscow brought out some interesting contrasts between\nthe U.S. and the Soviet Union. For instance, the auto industry is a favorite target of the\nNaderists. In Russia, auto production is not competitive at all. The average Soviet\ncitizen only dreams of a car. The Zhiquli, Russian version of the Fiat, costs the equivalent\nof $6,707, more than a year's salary for most. It takes up to 8 months to get a car in Russia.\nModel choices are about the same as in the days of the Model T in the U.S. Gas stations\nare few, gas is strictly rationed, and there is only one car wash in Moscow. Buying a car\nis a bureaucratic obstacle course of forms and frustration.\n***\n(more)\n- 2 -\nIn the U.S., the buyer has hundreds of model choices, can buy on demand,\nhas a gas station and car wash it seems on every corner. How come? Competition. Many\nhundreds of firms have entered the auto business. They have shaken down to four major\nproducers. Why? Because their products did not appeal to the mass market. The buyer\nhere is still king. The buyer makes the decisions on the basis of what appeals to his or\nher demands. There is a huge used-car market, which competes with new cars, forcing\nimprovements and holding the line on prices. Along with big auto business has come big\noil business with stiff price competition for products and services. Gas \"price wars\" refute\nNader's monopoly charges.\nThere are millions of jobs in the U.S. created solely by our infatuation with\nwheels. In Russia, the huge new state-owned Volga auto plant turns out 3,000 cars a\nday--far less than a million a year. U.S. manufacturers are turning out 8 million cars,\ntrucks and buses. In addition, there are 23 foreign car makers selling 1.5 million cars\na year in the U.S. No other nation even comes close to providing its people with the\nmobility that the U.S. auto industry has developed for Americans. Comparing the car\nindustry with the boat industry reveals that, because boats are not assembly-line made and\nbecause they require considerable hand work, they are selling at very high prices--and\nthe dropout rate of manufacturers is increasing rapidly.\nIt is exasperating when autos do not perform up to the owner's expectations.\nBut in the Soviet Union, some 8 million people won't be able to buy an auto this year--\nbut 8 million Americans will buy U.S. cars. This bounteous supply of rolling stock is the\ndividend we get from bigness in our production facilities.\n* * *\nSHORT HAUL FOR THE LONG HAUL--The Department of Transportation has\ncome up with a new program to ease congestion and noise problems around urban areas\nand to provide better service throughout the Nation for air travelers. It consists of\nde-centralization=-taking short haul air traffic out of huge airports and spreading it\naround to smaller airports to service the short-hop traffic.\nSecretary John Volpe said the new system would not compete with rail facilities,\nbut would concentrate on areas where no adequate rail connections exist and where air\ntravel is growing rapidly. A new breed of super-quiet planes is in the offing and the\nprogram now is in the stage of evaluating the Nation's secondary airports to fit them into\nthe short-haul program. Funds will be supplied to develop safety facilities and to guarantee\nthe system is environmentally sound.\n***\nAMERICANS, TOO?--There is a growing movement in Congress to pass some\nkind of legislation which would reimburse victims of crime. Several States have such\nlaws--only recently the State of Maryland agreed to pay $45,000 to a heroic cab driver\nwho was shot going to the aid of a woman who was being robbed by four youths.\nOne argument is that U.S. citizens should have the same rights as foreigners.\nThe U.S. has processed more than 17,000 cases under the Foreign Claims Act to reimburse\nforeigners for crimes such as assault, robbery or rape committed in foreign lands by U.S.\ncitizens. Some $10 million has been paid out since 1970. But, in the U.S., the victim\nhas no redress to the Government.\nThis is a knotty question. It poses the concept that the Government is totally\nresponsible for an individual's safety--and must pay if that safety breaks down. Many of\nus, sympathetic though we might be toward the victims of crime, wonder if Uncle Sam can\ncontinue to assume responsibility for every facet of American life. The payout would be\nin the billions of dollars in the U.S. --and we would have to enact taxes eventually to pay\nfor the benefits. There is pressure also to step up the war on crime, reform the courts with\nmore judges and court workers and to rehabilitate criminals. All in all, crime would turn\nout to be the Government's most expensive activity.\n***\n- 3 -\nNOTE TO MEMBERS--Rep. Robert H. Steels of Connecticut has issued, \"A\nGuide for Senior Citizens,\" containing information on Social Security, Railroad Employee\nBenefits, VA benefits, Medicare-Medicaid, Old Age Assistance, Nutrition and Fitness,\nHousing, Legal aids, Transportation, Employment Opportunities, Federal and State taxes,\nVoter information, Drivers' licenses, Department on Aging and a directory of services\navailable to Senior Citizens. It is illustrated and contains listings of local agencies and\norganizations involved with old-age activities. This is an outstanding booklet, adaptable\nfor almost any Congressional District. Contact Steve Berg (52076), Room 1206 Longworth,\nfor information on how it was put together.\n***\nVIETNAM--Edmund Burke once said, \"Retrospect is not wise or proper. The only\nproper subject of inquiry is, not how we got into this difficulty, but how we can get out of\nit!\" Here's the latest situation in Vietnam:\n1. Reduction of troop level from 550,000 to 60,000;\n2. Withdrawals of U.S. forces steadily continuing;\n3. Interdiction working;\n4. Neither Russia nor China offer overt reaction.\nHere is the United States offer:\n1. Out in four months, after\n2. Release of POWs and MIAs;\n3. Internationally supervised ceasefire.\nWhat do opponents of U.S. proposal offer?\nAnswer: Accept all of the above except ceasefire.\nAccept promise of Hanoi to release POWs and MIAs.\nBut the ceasefire is the only way to end the killing. And Hanoi's promise,\nrather than actual release is not enough. Of 36,709 French POWs and MIAs, only\n10,754 were ever released. Hanoi never accounted for the rest."
}

Survos folio page chat

Ask the Scholar

Page image

OCR

Page data

Document data

Context sent to Scholar