Wisconsin’s MAGA Senate Candidate in Hot Water again re. Nursing Homes
MAGA Senate Candidate Eric Hovde (from campaign ad)
We blogged a couple of weeks ago about Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate Erik Hovde’s head-scratching comments suggesting that seniors in nursing homes don’t have the mental capacity to vote. Now, the New York Times has reported, Hovde is financially entangled with a nursing home that is being sued for mistreating patients:
The bank he leads, Utah-based Sunwest, last month was named as a co-defendant in a California lawsuit that accuses a senior living facility partly owned by the bank of elder abuse, negligence and wrongful death. – NY Times, 4/20/24
The story added a new dimension to the public’s understanding of Hovde, a Trump-endorsed MAGA candidate who is trying to unseat incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin. (NCPSSM’s PAC endorsed Baldwin in March.) On Tuesday, NCPSSM president and CEO Max Richtman criticized Hovde as being out of touch with older voters… in a press call organized by Wisconsin’s Democratic party:
“Eric Hovde is obviously very comfortable among wealthy bankers, but not so much with the people of Wisconsin — and certainly not with the state’s seniors. The contrast with Senator Baldwin could not be clearer.” – Max Richtman, NCPSSM President & CEO, 4/23/24
According to Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wilker, Hovde has managed to insult not only seniors — but several other constituencies. Wilker quotes Hovde as saying that farmers spend all their time driving around on tractors and don’t do real physical labor; that young Wisconsinites lack a work ethic and are “so stupid”; and that people struggling with obesity should pay more for their health care. Five months before the general election, Hovde is certainly off to an auspicious start!
Read on… here is our original blog post from 4/11/24::::
Seniors’ advocates and their political allies are criticizing recent comments by Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde suggesting that nursing home residents can’t – or shouldn’t – vote. Hovde, who is running to unseat incumbent Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), told Fox News’ Guy Benson:::
“We had nursing homes where you had 100 percent voting… Well, if you’re in a nursing home, you only have a five, six-month life expectancy. Almost nobody in a nursing home is in a point to vote. And you had children, adult children showing up saying, ‘Who voted for my 85 or 90-year-old father or mother?’” – GOP Senate candidate Eric Hovde
These comments by the Trump-endorsed, MAGA Republican candidate drew sharp rebukes as blatantly ageist and fact-free. “Hovde said that people living in nursing homes usually die after a few months,” Senator Baldwin’s campaign responded. “Everyone deserves the freedom to vote, so they can make their voices heard in our elections. But Eric Hovde wants to take that away for seniors living in nursing homes.”
NCPSSM, which has endorsed Baldwin’ re-election bid, blasted Hovde’s comments. “Senators are supposed to represent ALL of their voters, and it is a total insult to the basic dignity of Wisconsin’s seniors to suggest that they are too old to vote,” said Luke Warren, director of the NCPSSM political action committee (PAC). “Hovde should be celebrating high voter turnout among nursing home residents, not griping about it.”
Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM’s senior health policy expert, added, “Hovde is basically suggesting that people in nursing homes are unworthy of voting, and that they are all about to die, which is not true.” Montgomery corrected several false or misleading arguments in Hovde’s comments:::
*The average life expectancy of nursing home residents is years, not months.
*There’s ZERO evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast in Wisconsin nursing homes in 2020.
*Nursing home residents, on average, are trending younger. The percentage of patients under 65 years of age in nursing homes grew from 10% in 2000 to 16% in 2017.
The Independent offered some additional fact-checking, indicating that voter participation in Wisconsin nursing homes was nowhere near “100%” in 2020, as Hovde claimed. “A review… by the Wisconsin State Journal found just one nursing home in the state had a 100% voter turnout. (It had just 12 registered voters).” Other facilities ranged from 42-91%, the paper reported.
Hovde’s remarks are not random for a MAGA candidate; they are part of Trump’s larger (and false) narrative about the 2020 election being “rigged.” (Hovde disagrees that the election was “stolen,” but said “things happened in that election that were very troublesome.”) Wisconsin was crucial to Joe Biden’s electoral victory in 2020, and the MAGA movement can’t abide that he won the state fairly, claiming that “thousands of crooked votes” came out of nursing homes in Wisconsin — a falsehood that has been completely discredited.
“Instead of trying to disenfranchise seniors living in nursing homes,” NCPSSM’s Anne Montgomery says, “We should be continuing to try to make it easier for nursing home residents to vote. They are just as entitled to participate in our democratic system as everyone else.”
Montgomery points out that lawmakers over the years have tried to reduce barriers to voting access for this population, including mail balloting and accommodations for people with disabilities at polling places. Montgomery cited the Help America Vote Act of 2002 — and a series of GAO reports highlighted by then-Senator and Baldwin’s predecessor, Herb Kohl (D-WI), acknowledging efforts to facilitate voting access and calling for further improvements.
When Badger State seniors cast ballots in 2024, they will have to take stock of the two Senate candidates, MAGA Republican Eric Hovde vs. Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who NCPSSM praised as a “champion of Wisconsin seniors.” As PAC director Luke Warren says, “It takes little imagination to picture how a ‘Senator Hovde’ would treat older constituents if he were in office. He has praised plans to gut Medicare and supports cutting Social Security. These latest comments are a stark reminder of the stakes in November for Wisconsin seniors.”
Listen to our podcast about ageism in culture and politics: Part 1 and Part 2 with expert S. Jay Olshanksy.
MAGA Wisconsin Senate Candidate Rebuked for Nursing Home Comments
Seniors’ advocates and their political allies are criticizing recent comments by Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde suggesting that nursing home residents can’t – or shouldn’t – vote. Hovde, who is running to unseat incumbent Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), told Fox News’ Guy Benson:::
“We had nursing homes where you had 100 percent voting… Well, if you’re in a nursing home, you only have a five, six-month life expectancy. Almost nobody in a nursing home is in a point to vote. And you had children, adult children showing up saying, ‘Who voted for my 85 or 90-year-old father or mother?’” – GOP Senate candidate Eric Hovde
These comments by the Trump-endorsed, MAGA Republican candidate drew sharp rebukes as blatantly ageist and fact-free. “Hovde said that people living in nursing homes usually die after a few months,” Senator Baldwin’s campaign responded. “Everyone deserves the freedom to vote, so they can make their voices heard in our elections. But Eric Hovde wants to take that away for seniors living in nursing homes.”
NCPSSM, which has endorsed Baldwin’ re-election bid, blasted Hovde’s comments. “Senators are supposed to represent ALL of their voters, and it is a total insult to the basic dignity of Wisconsin’s seniors to suggest that they are too old to vote,” said Luke Warren, director of the NCPSSM political action committee (PAC). “Hovde should be celebrating high voter turnout among nursing home residents, not griping about it.”
Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM’s senior health policy expert, added, “Hovde is basically suggesting that people in nursing homes are unworthy of voting, and that they are all about to die, which is not true.” Montgomery corrected several false or misleading arguments in Hovde’s comments:::
*The average life expectancy of nursing home residents is years, not months.
*There’s ZERO evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast in Wisconsin nursing homes in 2020.
*Nursing home residents, on average, are trending younger. The percentage of patients under 65 years of age in nursing homes grew from 10% in 2000 to 16% in 2017.
The Independent offered some additional fact-checking, indicating that voter participation in Wisconsin nursing homes was nowhere near “100%” in 2020, as Hovde claimed. “A review… by the Wisconsin State Journal found just one nursing home in the state had a 100% voter turnout. (It had just 12 registered voters).” Other facilities ranged from 42-91%, the paper reported.
Hovde’s remarks are not random for a MAGA candidate; they are part of Trump’s larger (and false) narrative about the 2020 election being “rigged.” (Hovde disagrees that the election was “stolen,” but said “things happened in that election that were very troublesome.”) Wisconsin was crucial to Joe Biden’s electoral victory in 2020, and the MAGA movement can’t abide that he won the state fairly, claiming that “thousands of crooked votes” came out of nursing homes in Wisconsin — a falsehood that has been completely discredited.
“Instead of trying to disenfranchise seniors living in nursing homes,” NCPSSM’s Anne Montgomery says, “We should be continuing to try to make it easier for nursing home residents to vote. They are just as entitled to participate in our democratic system as everyone else.”
Montgomery points out that lawmakers over the years have tried to reduce barriers to voting access for this population, including mail balloting and accommodations for people with disabilities at polling places. Montgomery cited the Help America Vote Act of 2002 — and a series of GAO reports highlighted by then-Senator and Baldwin’s predecessor, Herb Kohl (D-WI), acknowledging efforts to facilitate voting access and calling for further improvements.
When Badger State seniors cast ballots in 2024, they will have to take stock of the two Senate candidates, MAGA Republican Eric Hovde vs. Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who NCPSSM praised as a “champion of Wisconsin seniors.” As PAC director Luke Warren says, “It takes little imagination to picture how a ‘Senator Hovde’ would treat older constituents if he were in office. He has praised plans to gut Medicare and supports cutting Social Security. These latest comments are a stark reminder of the stakes in November for Wisconsin seniors.”
Listen to our podcast about ageism in culture and politics: Part 1 and Part 2 with expert S. Jay Olshanksy.
Republican Study Committee Budget Cuts Earned Benefits; Keeps Trump Tax Cuts
For solid clues as to what the Republicans would do to Americans’ earned benefits if they maintain power in the House and recapture the Senate and/or the White House, look no further than the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) 2025 budget blueprint. For the second year in a row, the RSC proposes cutting Social Security and Medicare. Rep. Brendan Boyle, Ranking member of the House Budget committee, estimated at a hearing today that these cuts amount to $1.5 trillion for Social Security and $1 trillion for Medicare.
On the Social Security side, the RSC calls for raising the full Social Security retirement age from its current level of 67 (for anyone born in 1960 or later) to an unspecified older age. “Raising the retirement age is a huge benefit cut,” explains NCPSSM President and CEO, Max Richtman, “because you’d be receiving less money as a beneficiary during your lifetime.”
Republicans say that because (on average) people are living longer, they should be forced to work longer before collecting full Social Security benefits. They neglect to mention that workers in physically demanding jobs cannot always work into their late 60s — or that living longer means having to stretch what may be scant retirement savings over a longer period of time.
The RSC also proposes reducing benefits for “upper income earners.” This would put Social Security on a slippery slope toward means testing. “Means testing means Social Security would no longer be an earned benefit, but a welfare program,” says Richtman.
An analysis by the Center for American Progress estimates if the RSC proposal were in effect today, anyone whose lifetime wages averaged over $85,000 would be considered ‘wealthy’ and have their benefits cut — including the elimination of crucial spousal benefits. “We don’t usually consider people earning $85,000 per year wealthy,” says Maria Freese, NCPSSM’s senior legislative representative. “Making matters worse, in order to save the program any significant amount of money, benefits would have to be reduced for people earning even less than $85,000, cutting deep into the heart of the middle class.”
The RSC stresses that their spending plan “does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement.” But it would cut benefits for younger Gen Xers, Millennials, and Gen Z. “These younger workers will need every dollar of their Social Security benefits when they retire. Like the older generations, they earned these benefits and shouldn’t have them cut,” says Richtman.
Trump told CNBC he’d cut “entitlements.” Biden said: “Not on my watch!”
Republicans may deny it, but cutting Social Security IS their fiscal plan, claiming that the government can’t afford to strengthen the program without cuts. At the same time, the RSC budget would make the Trump/GOP tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations permanent. They will not entertain, however, raising taxes on high income earners in order to bring more revenue into Social Security, which is the preferred solution of many congressional Democrats, President Biden, and advocates including NCPSSM.
The RSC blueprint not only threatens retirees’ and families’ financial security, but their health security, too, by undermining the Medicare program. It calls for converting Medicare to a “premium support model” — meaning guaranteed benefits would be replaced with vouchers. As Rep. Boyle pointed out, “Seniors would be left to fend for themselves in the insurance marketplace with nothing more than a coupon.”
With the 2024 elections looming, House Republicans couldn’t have put a finer point on their true priorities: shower the rich and corporations with huge tax breaks and cut the programs that working Americans rely on for financial and health security. This comes a week after Donald Trump told CNBC that there is “a lot to be done” in cutting “entitlements” (Social Security and Medicare), only to try to walk back that statement a few days later.
President Biden’s campaign tweeted in response to Trump’s CNBC comments, “Not on my watch.” On March 11, the President released his budget for the next fiscal year, which called for strengthening Social Security by adjusting the payroll tax cap so that anyone earning over $400,000 in wages would continue contributing to the system. In the past, the president advocated bolstering Medicare’s finances by leveraging some of the net investment tax paid by wealthier individuals.
TIRED OF READING… and want to listen instead? Check out our “You Earned This” podcast! 15-minute episodes about topics important to seniors and their families! LISTEN HERE.
Biden: The Wealthy Will Pay Their Fair Share into Social Security
In Thursday night’s State of the Union address, President Biden put himself unequivocally on the side of American seniors and the programs they rely on. He redoubled his commitment to protecting Social Security after confronting congressional Republicans in last year’s speech. The president went beyond taking seniors’ earned benefits “off the table” for cuts as he did last year — by declaring, “I will protect and strengthen Social Security and make the wealthy pay their fair share.”
Referring to the payroll wage cap – currently set at $168,600 – the President said that “working people who built this country pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do. It’s not fair.” We applaud his call for Congress to “stand up for seniors” — and defend Social Security against proposed GOP cuts, warning “If anyone tries to cut Social Security or raise the retirement age. I will stop you!”
The House Republican Study Committee called for raising the Social Security retirement age in its 2024 budget blueprint. Former presidential candidate Nikki Haley campaigned on raising the age, even though it would represent a massive benefit cut — if not for today’s seniors, then for future generations.
The President also affirmed his leadership role in lowering prescription drug prices, another issue of supreme importance to American seniors. Millions of seniors have been forced by Big Pharma price gouging to ration crucial medications — or to choose between filling prescriptions and paying for other essentials.
The President wants to supercharge Medicare’s new power to negotiate drug prices (via the Inflation Reduction Act) by increasing the number of medications subject to negotiations — from 10 this first year to 50 per year — or 500 medications over a decade. (The current law allows for 20 drugs to be negotiated next year). The President said that it’s vital that Medicare be able to negotiate prices for “the major drugs that seniors rely on, like those used for treating heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.”
“This State of the Union speech reminds us that the two parties’ positions on the federal government’s role in seniors’ financial and health security could not be more different. The President reinforced tonight that while the other side does the bidding of Big Pharma and their wealthy donors, he will continue to fight for seniors and their families.” – Max Richtman, President & CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
The President echoed the administration’s proposed new rule that would establish minimum levels for staffing of nursing homes to “make sure your loved ones get the care they deserve and that they expect.” We strongly support the rule and object to Republican attempts to block it. The President also called for extending the Inflation Reduction Act’s $2,000 out of pocket cap on Medicare drug costs to all Americans covered by private insurance.
Tonight’s speech reinforced the stark contrast between the President’s approach to seniors’ programs and the Republican approach — which emphasizes benefit cuts and privatization. The House Republican Study Committee recommended raising the retirement age, means testing, and a more miserly COLA formula for Social Security. House Republicans have been pushing the creation of a fiscal commission that could fast-track cuts to seniors’ earned benefits. Meanwhile, not a single Republican member of Congress supported the President’s Inflation Reduction Act, which is already providing seniors with relief from soaring drug costs — and having a positive effect on the consumer market as a whole.
Seniors’ advocates joined NCPSSM in applauding the President’s speech. Yael Lehmann, interim executive director of Families USA, praised Biden’s “stalwart defense of programs like… Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.” Rich Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, gave kudos to the President for stating “his firm opposition to any legislation that will cut the benefits Americans earn over a lifetime of work, including a so-called ‘fiscal commission’ to meet behind closed doors and do Congress’ dirty work.” Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, concluded that “Biden and Democrats are fighting to protect and expand Social Security and Medicare, while Donald Trump and Republicans are scheming to gut them behind closed doors.”
Special Counsel in Biden Classified Documents Case Plays Amateur Gerontologist
By declining to charge President Biden with mishandling classified documents, but gratuitously impugning the president’s cognitive abilities, special counsel Robert Hur overstepped his bounds and fed into a blatantly ageist political narrative. Hur pulled a “James Comey” yesterday in announcing that the president would not be charged with a crime but criticizing Biden, anyway, just as Comey did with Hillary Clinton in 2016. (And we know how that turned out.) But, unlike Comey, Hur felt the need to disparage the President’s age and his memory, referring to Biden as “a well-meaning, elderly man.”
President Biden rightly defended himself during a press conference Thursday night. “I’m well-meaning, and I’m an elderly man — and I know what the hell I’m doing,” he declared from the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House, as the Washington Post reported.
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder posted on X (formerly Twitter):
“Special Counsel Hur’s report… contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with longstanding Department of Justice (DOJ) traditions. Had this report been subject to normal DOJ review, these remarks undoubtedly would have been excised.” – Eric Holder
Columnist Robert Kuttner assailed Hur in today’s American Prospect, accusing him of “going out of his way to offer politically damaging and snarky assertions, and quotable one-liners.”
It’s interesting that Hur (a former Trump appointee) felt the need to play amateur gerontologist, which is not traditionally the job of a federal investigator. A lot of people are assuming that ‘gerontologist’ role these days without any qualifications whatsoever — from social media users to rival political figures — especially when it comes to President Biden. The worst offender has been Nikki Haley, who shamelessly said in a tv ad: “I’ll just say it: Biden’s too old.” She added for good measure, “And Congress is the most exclusive nursing home in America.”
Special prosecutor and armchair gerontologist Robert Hur
“You have to realize that most people that are out there commenting on this haven’t really looked at (Biden’s) medical records,” demographer S. Jay Olshanksy told us on our podcast in January. “My colleagues and I, including board certified geriatricians, have looked at the medical records in detail that are publicly available. We have come to the conclusion that there are no significant issues with President Biden’s cognitive abilities.”
Several national figures rushed to Biden’s defense on social media after Hur’s report was released. MSNBC host and former Republican Joe Scarborough posted:
“Hur, a lifelong Republican and creature of Washington, didn’t have a case against Biden, but knew how his swipes could hurt Biden politically.” – Joe Scarborough
Former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Joyce Vance, commented on X:
“Robert Hur was no friend to Joe Biden. He conceded there wasn’t evidence that would prove (the president) committed a crime. That’s all. It’s over right there. It’s not like a friendly prosecutor gave Biden a pass.” – Joyce Vance
Meanwhile, President Trump largely seems to get a pass on his mental acuity by many in the mainstream media — and in the public at large— despite recent speeches replete with delusions, fantasies, paranoia, and outright falsehoods.
Olshansky says that commentators who question Biden’s mental agility are engaging in “classic ageism — where people draw false conclusions about older individuals based on the number of trips around the sun.”
As we wrote in this space last year, ageism is one of the only socially acceptable -isms these days — and runs rampant in our culture. “Ageism is everywhere – in the workplace, in media, in Hollywood, in schools and in health care, and it is something that most everyone will experience at some point in their lives,” writes Michele Dinman of the Harvey A. Friedman Center for Aging at Washington University in St. Louis.
Ageism is not a benign phenomenon. According to Dinman, older adults experience discrimination in employment, housing, health care, and in their daily lives. In a 2019 survey, 82% of older adults said that they “regularly experienced at least one form of everyday ageism.”
Olshanksy argues that President Biden should be judged by his achievements in office and his policy decisions, not by an ageist standard.
“I would think that the vast majority of the population would be incapable of holding the schedule that President Biden holds on a daily basis and under a spotlight added to that. So I would challenge anyone who makes this claim that there’s any sort of cognitive issue associated with President Biden to follow his schedule for a day and see how long they last. I don’t think they would last a single day.” – S. Jay Olshansky, Demographer, University of Illinois at Chicago
Ageism not only has no legitimate place in our political discourse, it has no place in our society at large. The last thing we need at a cultural moment like this is prosecutors playing armchair experts on the mental health of the president — or any other citizen of the United States of America.
Wisconsin’s MAGA Senate Candidate in Hot Water again re. Nursing Homes
MAGA Senate Candidate Eric Hovde (from campaign ad)
We blogged a couple of weeks ago about Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate Erik Hovde’s head-scratching comments suggesting that seniors in nursing homes don’t have the mental capacity to vote. Now, the New York Times has reported, Hovde is financially entangled with a nursing home that is being sued for mistreating patients:
The bank he leads, Utah-based Sunwest, last month was named as a co-defendant in a California lawsuit that accuses a senior living facility partly owned by the bank of elder abuse, negligence and wrongful death. – NY Times, 4/20/24
The story added a new dimension to the public’s understanding of Hovde, a Trump-endorsed MAGA candidate who is trying to unseat incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin. (NCPSSM’s PAC endorsed Baldwin in March.) On Tuesday, NCPSSM president and CEO Max Richtman criticized Hovde as being out of touch with older voters… in a press call organized by Wisconsin’s Democratic party:
“Eric Hovde is obviously very comfortable among wealthy bankers, but not so much with the people of Wisconsin — and certainly not with the state’s seniors. The contrast with Senator Baldwin could not be clearer.” – Max Richtman, NCPSSM President & CEO, 4/23/24
According to Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wilker, Hovde has managed to insult not only seniors — but several other constituencies. Wilker quotes Hovde as saying that farmers spend all their time driving around on tractors and don’t do real physical labor; that young Wisconsinites lack a work ethic and are “so stupid”; and that people struggling with obesity should pay more for their health care. Five months before the general election, Hovde is certainly off to an auspicious start!
Read on… here is our original blog post from 4/11/24::::
Seniors’ advocates and their political allies are criticizing recent comments by Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde suggesting that nursing home residents can’t – or shouldn’t – vote. Hovde, who is running to unseat incumbent Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), told Fox News’ Guy Benson:::
“We had nursing homes where you had 100 percent voting… Well, if you’re in a nursing home, you only have a five, six-month life expectancy. Almost nobody in a nursing home is in a point to vote. And you had children, adult children showing up saying, ‘Who voted for my 85 or 90-year-old father or mother?’” – GOP Senate candidate Eric Hovde
These comments by the Trump-endorsed, MAGA Republican candidate drew sharp rebukes as blatantly ageist and fact-free. “Hovde said that people living in nursing homes usually die after a few months,” Senator Baldwin’s campaign responded. “Everyone deserves the freedom to vote, so they can make their voices heard in our elections. But Eric Hovde wants to take that away for seniors living in nursing homes.”
NCPSSM, which has endorsed Baldwin’ re-election bid, blasted Hovde’s comments. “Senators are supposed to represent ALL of their voters, and it is a total insult to the basic dignity of Wisconsin’s seniors to suggest that they are too old to vote,” said Luke Warren, director of the NCPSSM political action committee (PAC). “Hovde should be celebrating high voter turnout among nursing home residents, not griping about it.”
Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM’s senior health policy expert, added, “Hovde is basically suggesting that people in nursing homes are unworthy of voting, and that they are all about to die, which is not true.” Montgomery corrected several false or misleading arguments in Hovde’s comments:::
*The average life expectancy of nursing home residents is years, not months.
*There’s ZERO evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast in Wisconsin nursing homes in 2020.
*Nursing home residents, on average, are trending younger. The percentage of patients under 65 years of age in nursing homes grew from 10% in 2000 to 16% in 2017.
The Independent offered some additional fact-checking, indicating that voter participation in Wisconsin nursing homes was nowhere near “100%” in 2020, as Hovde claimed. “A review… by the Wisconsin State Journal found just one nursing home in the state had a 100% voter turnout. (It had just 12 registered voters).” Other facilities ranged from 42-91%, the paper reported.
Hovde’s remarks are not random for a MAGA candidate; they are part of Trump’s larger (and false) narrative about the 2020 election being “rigged.” (Hovde disagrees that the election was “stolen,” but said “things happened in that election that were very troublesome.”) Wisconsin was crucial to Joe Biden’s electoral victory in 2020, and the MAGA movement can’t abide that he won the state fairly, claiming that “thousands of crooked votes” came out of nursing homes in Wisconsin — a falsehood that has been completely discredited.
“Instead of trying to disenfranchise seniors living in nursing homes,” NCPSSM’s Anne Montgomery says, “We should be continuing to try to make it easier for nursing home residents to vote. They are just as entitled to participate in our democratic system as everyone else.”
Montgomery points out that lawmakers over the years have tried to reduce barriers to voting access for this population, including mail balloting and accommodations for people with disabilities at polling places. Montgomery cited the Help America Vote Act of 2002 — and a series of GAO reports highlighted by then-Senator and Baldwin’s predecessor, Herb Kohl (D-WI), acknowledging efforts to facilitate voting access and calling for further improvements.
When Badger State seniors cast ballots in 2024, they will have to take stock of the two Senate candidates, MAGA Republican Eric Hovde vs. Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who NCPSSM praised as a “champion of Wisconsin seniors.” As PAC director Luke Warren says, “It takes little imagination to picture how a ‘Senator Hovde’ would treat older constituents if he were in office. He has praised plans to gut Medicare and supports cutting Social Security. These latest comments are a stark reminder of the stakes in November for Wisconsin seniors.”
Listen to our podcast about ageism in culture and politics: Part 1 and Part 2 with expert S. Jay Olshanksy.
MAGA Wisconsin Senate Candidate Rebuked for Nursing Home Comments
Seniors’ advocates and their political allies are criticizing recent comments by Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde suggesting that nursing home residents can’t – or shouldn’t – vote. Hovde, who is running to unseat incumbent Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), told Fox News’ Guy Benson:::
“We had nursing homes where you had 100 percent voting… Well, if you’re in a nursing home, you only have a five, six-month life expectancy. Almost nobody in a nursing home is in a point to vote. And you had children, adult children showing up saying, ‘Who voted for my 85 or 90-year-old father or mother?’” – GOP Senate candidate Eric Hovde
These comments by the Trump-endorsed, MAGA Republican candidate drew sharp rebukes as blatantly ageist and fact-free. “Hovde said that people living in nursing homes usually die after a few months,” Senator Baldwin’s campaign responded. “Everyone deserves the freedom to vote, so they can make their voices heard in our elections. But Eric Hovde wants to take that away for seniors living in nursing homes.”
NCPSSM, which has endorsed Baldwin’ re-election bid, blasted Hovde’s comments. “Senators are supposed to represent ALL of their voters, and it is a total insult to the basic dignity of Wisconsin’s seniors to suggest that they are too old to vote,” said Luke Warren, director of the NCPSSM political action committee (PAC). “Hovde should be celebrating high voter turnout among nursing home residents, not griping about it.”
Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM’s senior health policy expert, added, “Hovde is basically suggesting that people in nursing homes are unworthy of voting, and that they are all about to die, which is not true.” Montgomery corrected several false or misleading arguments in Hovde’s comments:::
*The average life expectancy of nursing home residents is years, not months.
*There’s ZERO evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast in Wisconsin nursing homes in 2020.
*Nursing home residents, on average, are trending younger. The percentage of patients under 65 years of age in nursing homes grew from 10% in 2000 to 16% in 2017.
The Independent offered some additional fact-checking, indicating that voter participation in Wisconsin nursing homes was nowhere near “100%” in 2020, as Hovde claimed. “A review… by the Wisconsin State Journal found just one nursing home in the state had a 100% voter turnout. (It had just 12 registered voters).” Other facilities ranged from 42-91%, the paper reported.
Hovde’s remarks are not random for a MAGA candidate; they are part of Trump’s larger (and false) narrative about the 2020 election being “rigged.” (Hovde disagrees that the election was “stolen,” but said “things happened in that election that were very troublesome.”) Wisconsin was crucial to Joe Biden’s electoral victory in 2020, and the MAGA movement can’t abide that he won the state fairly, claiming that “thousands of crooked votes” came out of nursing homes in Wisconsin — a falsehood that has been completely discredited.
“Instead of trying to disenfranchise seniors living in nursing homes,” NCPSSM’s Anne Montgomery says, “We should be continuing to try to make it easier for nursing home residents to vote. They are just as entitled to participate in our democratic system as everyone else.”
Montgomery points out that lawmakers over the years have tried to reduce barriers to voting access for this population, including mail balloting and accommodations for people with disabilities at polling places. Montgomery cited the Help America Vote Act of 2002 — and a series of GAO reports highlighted by then-Senator and Baldwin’s predecessor, Herb Kohl (D-WI), acknowledging efforts to facilitate voting access and calling for further improvements.
When Badger State seniors cast ballots in 2024, they will have to take stock of the two Senate candidates, MAGA Republican Eric Hovde vs. Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who NCPSSM praised as a “champion of Wisconsin seniors.” As PAC director Luke Warren says, “It takes little imagination to picture how a ‘Senator Hovde’ would treat older constituents if he were in office. He has praised plans to gut Medicare and supports cutting Social Security. These latest comments are a stark reminder of the stakes in November for Wisconsin seniors.”
Listen to our podcast about ageism in culture and politics: Part 1 and Part 2 with expert S. Jay Olshanksy.
Republican Study Committee Budget Cuts Earned Benefits; Keeps Trump Tax Cuts
For solid clues as to what the Republicans would do to Americans’ earned benefits if they maintain power in the House and recapture the Senate and/or the White House, look no further than the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) 2025 budget blueprint. For the second year in a row, the RSC proposes cutting Social Security and Medicare. Rep. Brendan Boyle, Ranking member of the House Budget committee, estimated at a hearing today that these cuts amount to $1.5 trillion for Social Security and $1 trillion for Medicare.
On the Social Security side, the RSC calls for raising the full Social Security retirement age from its current level of 67 (for anyone born in 1960 or later) to an unspecified older age. “Raising the retirement age is a huge benefit cut,” explains NCPSSM President and CEO, Max Richtman, “because you’d be receiving less money as a beneficiary during your lifetime.”
Republicans say that because (on average) people are living longer, they should be forced to work longer before collecting full Social Security benefits. They neglect to mention that workers in physically demanding jobs cannot always work into their late 60s — or that living longer means having to stretch what may be scant retirement savings over a longer period of time.
The RSC also proposes reducing benefits for “upper income earners.” This would put Social Security on a slippery slope toward means testing. “Means testing means Social Security would no longer be an earned benefit, but a welfare program,” says Richtman.
An analysis by the Center for American Progress estimates if the RSC proposal were in effect today, anyone whose lifetime wages averaged over $85,000 would be considered ‘wealthy’ and have their benefits cut — including the elimination of crucial spousal benefits. “We don’t usually consider people earning $85,000 per year wealthy,” says Maria Freese, NCPSSM’s senior legislative representative. “Making matters worse, in order to save the program any significant amount of money, benefits would have to be reduced for people earning even less than $85,000, cutting deep into the heart of the middle class.”
The RSC stresses that their spending plan “does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement.” But it would cut benefits for younger Gen Xers, Millennials, and Gen Z. “These younger workers will need every dollar of their Social Security benefits when they retire. Like the older generations, they earned these benefits and shouldn’t have them cut,” says Richtman.
Trump told CNBC he’d cut “entitlements.” Biden said: “Not on my watch!”
Republicans may deny it, but cutting Social Security IS their fiscal plan, claiming that the government can’t afford to strengthen the program without cuts. At the same time, the RSC budget would make the Trump/GOP tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations permanent. They will not entertain, however, raising taxes on high income earners in order to bring more revenue into Social Security, which is the preferred solution of many congressional Democrats, President Biden, and advocates including NCPSSM.
The RSC blueprint not only threatens retirees’ and families’ financial security, but their health security, too, by undermining the Medicare program. It calls for converting Medicare to a “premium support model” — meaning guaranteed benefits would be replaced with vouchers. As Rep. Boyle pointed out, “Seniors would be left to fend for themselves in the insurance marketplace with nothing more than a coupon.”
With the 2024 elections looming, House Republicans couldn’t have put a finer point on their true priorities: shower the rich and corporations with huge tax breaks and cut the programs that working Americans rely on for financial and health security. This comes a week after Donald Trump told CNBC that there is “a lot to be done” in cutting “entitlements” (Social Security and Medicare), only to try to walk back that statement a few days later.
President Biden’s campaign tweeted in response to Trump’s CNBC comments, “Not on my watch.” On March 11, the President released his budget for the next fiscal year, which called for strengthening Social Security by adjusting the payroll tax cap so that anyone earning over $400,000 in wages would continue contributing to the system. In the past, the president advocated bolstering Medicare’s finances by leveraging some of the net investment tax paid by wealthier individuals.
TIRED OF READING… and want to listen instead? Check out our “You Earned This” podcast! 15-minute episodes about topics important to seniors and their families! LISTEN HERE.
Biden: The Wealthy Will Pay Their Fair Share into Social Security
In Thursday night’s State of the Union address, President Biden put himself unequivocally on the side of American seniors and the programs they rely on. He redoubled his commitment to protecting Social Security after confronting congressional Republicans in last year’s speech. The president went beyond taking seniors’ earned benefits “off the table” for cuts as he did last year — by declaring, “I will protect and strengthen Social Security and make the wealthy pay their fair share.”
Referring to the payroll wage cap – currently set at $168,600 – the President said that “working people who built this country pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do. It’s not fair.” We applaud his call for Congress to “stand up for seniors” — and defend Social Security against proposed GOP cuts, warning “If anyone tries to cut Social Security or raise the retirement age. I will stop you!”
The House Republican Study Committee called for raising the Social Security retirement age in its 2024 budget blueprint. Former presidential candidate Nikki Haley campaigned on raising the age, even though it would represent a massive benefit cut — if not for today’s seniors, then for future generations.
The President also affirmed his leadership role in lowering prescription drug prices, another issue of supreme importance to American seniors. Millions of seniors have been forced by Big Pharma price gouging to ration crucial medications — or to choose between filling prescriptions and paying for other essentials.
The President wants to supercharge Medicare’s new power to negotiate drug prices (via the Inflation Reduction Act) by increasing the number of medications subject to negotiations — from 10 this first year to 50 per year — or 500 medications over a decade. (The current law allows for 20 drugs to be negotiated next year). The President said that it’s vital that Medicare be able to negotiate prices for “the major drugs that seniors rely on, like those used for treating heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.”
“This State of the Union speech reminds us that the two parties’ positions on the federal government’s role in seniors’ financial and health security could not be more different. The President reinforced tonight that while the other side does the bidding of Big Pharma and their wealthy donors, he will continue to fight for seniors and their families.” – Max Richtman, President & CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
The President echoed the administration’s proposed new rule that would establish minimum levels for staffing of nursing homes to “make sure your loved ones get the care they deserve and that they expect.” We strongly support the rule and object to Republican attempts to block it. The President also called for extending the Inflation Reduction Act’s $2,000 out of pocket cap on Medicare drug costs to all Americans covered by private insurance.
Tonight’s speech reinforced the stark contrast between the President’s approach to seniors’ programs and the Republican approach — which emphasizes benefit cuts and privatization. The House Republican Study Committee recommended raising the retirement age, means testing, and a more miserly COLA formula for Social Security. House Republicans have been pushing the creation of a fiscal commission that could fast-track cuts to seniors’ earned benefits. Meanwhile, not a single Republican member of Congress supported the President’s Inflation Reduction Act, which is already providing seniors with relief from soaring drug costs — and having a positive effect on the consumer market as a whole.
Seniors’ advocates joined NCPSSM in applauding the President’s speech. Yael Lehmann, interim executive director of Families USA, praised Biden’s “stalwart defense of programs like… Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.” Rich Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, gave kudos to the President for stating “his firm opposition to any legislation that will cut the benefits Americans earn over a lifetime of work, including a so-called ‘fiscal commission’ to meet behind closed doors and do Congress’ dirty work.” Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, concluded that “Biden and Democrats are fighting to protect and expand Social Security and Medicare, while Donald Trump and Republicans are scheming to gut them behind closed doors.”
Special Counsel in Biden Classified Documents Case Plays Amateur Gerontologist
By declining to charge President Biden with mishandling classified documents, but gratuitously impugning the president’s cognitive abilities, special counsel Robert Hur overstepped his bounds and fed into a blatantly ageist political narrative. Hur pulled a “James Comey” yesterday in announcing that the president would not be charged with a crime but criticizing Biden, anyway, just as Comey did with Hillary Clinton in 2016. (And we know how that turned out.) But, unlike Comey, Hur felt the need to disparage the President’s age and his memory, referring to Biden as “a well-meaning, elderly man.”
President Biden rightly defended himself during a press conference Thursday night. “I’m well-meaning, and I’m an elderly man — and I know what the hell I’m doing,” he declared from the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House, as the Washington Post reported.
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder posted on X (formerly Twitter):
“Special Counsel Hur’s report… contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with longstanding Department of Justice (DOJ) traditions. Had this report been subject to normal DOJ review, these remarks undoubtedly would have been excised.” – Eric Holder
Columnist Robert Kuttner assailed Hur in today’s American Prospect, accusing him of “going out of his way to offer politically damaging and snarky assertions, and quotable one-liners.”
It’s interesting that Hur (a former Trump appointee) felt the need to play amateur gerontologist, which is not traditionally the job of a federal investigator. A lot of people are assuming that ‘gerontologist’ role these days without any qualifications whatsoever — from social media users to rival political figures — especially when it comes to President Biden. The worst offender has been Nikki Haley, who shamelessly said in a tv ad: “I’ll just say it: Biden’s too old.” She added for good measure, “And Congress is the most exclusive nursing home in America.”
Special prosecutor and armchair gerontologist Robert Hur
“You have to realize that most people that are out there commenting on this haven’t really looked at (Biden’s) medical records,” demographer S. Jay Olshanksy told us on our podcast in January. “My colleagues and I, including board certified geriatricians, have looked at the medical records in detail that are publicly available. We have come to the conclusion that there are no significant issues with President Biden’s cognitive abilities.”
Several national figures rushed to Biden’s defense on social media after Hur’s report was released. MSNBC host and former Republican Joe Scarborough posted:
“Hur, a lifelong Republican and creature of Washington, didn’t have a case against Biden, but knew how his swipes could hurt Biden politically.” – Joe Scarborough
Former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Joyce Vance, commented on X:
“Robert Hur was no friend to Joe Biden. He conceded there wasn’t evidence that would prove (the president) committed a crime. That’s all. It’s over right there. It’s not like a friendly prosecutor gave Biden a pass.” – Joyce Vance
Meanwhile, President Trump largely seems to get a pass on his mental acuity by many in the mainstream media — and in the public at large— despite recent speeches replete with delusions, fantasies, paranoia, and outright falsehoods.
Olshansky says that commentators who question Biden’s mental agility are engaging in “classic ageism — where people draw false conclusions about older individuals based on the number of trips around the sun.”
As we wrote in this space last year, ageism is one of the only socially acceptable -isms these days — and runs rampant in our culture. “Ageism is everywhere – in the workplace, in media, in Hollywood, in schools and in health care, and it is something that most everyone will experience at some point in their lives,” writes Michele Dinman of the Harvey A. Friedman Center for Aging at Washington University in St. Louis.
Ageism is not a benign phenomenon. According to Dinman, older adults experience discrimination in employment, housing, health care, and in their daily lives. In a 2019 survey, 82% of older adults said that they “regularly experienced at least one form of everyday ageism.”
Olshanksy argues that President Biden should be judged by his achievements in office and his policy decisions, not by an ageist standard.
“I would think that the vast majority of the population would be incapable of holding the schedule that President Biden holds on a daily basis and under a spotlight added to that. So I would challenge anyone who makes this claim that there’s any sort of cognitive issue associated with President Biden to follow his schedule for a day and see how long they last. I don’t think they would last a single day.” – S. Jay Olshansky, Demographer, University of Illinois at Chicago
Ageism not only has no legitimate place in our political discourse, it has no place in our society at large. The last thing we need at a cultural moment like this is prosecutors playing armchair experts on the mental health of the president — or any other citizen of the United States of America.