Nikki Haley’s Call for Mental Competency Tests Proves that Ageism is Alive and Well
Upon kicking off her presidential campaign this week, Nikki Haley said politicians 75 years of age or older should be subject to mental competency tests. It was a cheap political shot at President Biden and her rival in the primaries, Donald Trump. But it was more than that. Haley’s statement is blatantly ageist. Of course, of all the -isms (racism, sexism, able-ism, classism, etc.), the targeting of older people remains one of the most socially acceptable – probably leading Haley to believe that her jab at senior politicians was safe. That doesn’t make it any less offensive.
Haley’s comment was not an outlier. During a panel discussion Wednesday on CNN Tonight spurred by Haley’s remarks, pundit Patrick McEnroe complained that there are too many older politicians in Washington. There was no pushback from the rest of the panel, of which McEnroe and anchor Alisyn Camerota were by far the oldest members (at 56). Imagine if a CNN panelist (or presidential candidate) commented that there were too many members of a particular race or ethnic group — or people with disabilities — in politics. The pushback would have been intense and immediate. Not so for ageism. Apparently, it’s still okay.
President Biden is the target of almost daily ridicule and criticism about his age. Many pundits argue that he is simply “too old” to serve a second term. (Note that the Founding Fathers did not impose an upper age limit on eligibility for the Presidency, only a lower one – 35 years of age.) While President Biden may suffer from verbal gaffes, a speech impediment, and some memory lapses, his chronological age should not disqualify him from serving a second term.
Age and hard-earned wisdom should be considered an asset in politics. As writer Jack Goldstone noted in the Financial Review “A leader with decades of experience is likely to have encountered various crises before and to know how to respond effectively.” To this point, the mainstream media were rightly impressed when President Biden skillfully baited Republicans into agreeing not to cut Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling debate during the State of the Union. Pundits correctly noted that his five decades as a politician and public office holder equipped him with the skills to outsmart the opposition on live tv in front of millions of viewers.
Rather than being judged by his chronological age, the President should be assessed by his performance in office, including his list of legislative accomplishments and handling of both domestic and foreign policy crises. Primary and general election voters should decide for themselves whether he is competent and fit to serve, not ageist candidates and pundits.
Unfortunately, the ageism directed at President Biden is typical. Despite their enormous contributions to our country, seniors are continually devalued as members of society. When someone calls another person “old,” it’s understood as an insult, not a sign of respect.
“In our society, older people too often are considered to be absent and invisible,” says our senior policy expert, Anne Montgomery, a longtime advocate for seniors and people with disabilities. “There are other cultures, though, where you are considered more important as you get older. The elderly have lived longer and accumulated wisdom that is useful to society.”
She’s right. In the U.S. and some other Western societies, “elder” is a bad word instead of a sign of respect. “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.”
The consequences are real. As Dinman writes, ageism can lead to poor physical health and shorten lives. It also can lead to “increased social isolation and loneliness.” In 2021, the World Health Organization reported that ageism can cost society billions of dollars in lost productivity and opportunity.
So, what about the claim that older politicians shouldn’t hold high public office? There have been plenty of members of Congress who have served admirably – and in lofty leadership positions – well into their late 70s and 80s. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is 84. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), an outspoken member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, is 86. Former House Speaker and current congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is 82. Legendary Congressman and voting rights crusader John Lewis (D-GA) served nobly until he died at age 80.
On the other side of the Capitol, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is 88. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is 89. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is 81. Some of these members of Congress are controversial, but arguably fully mentally competent and more than capable of representing their constituents and leading their colleagues.
When considering elder lawmakers of years past, we remember former House Speaker Tip O’Neill (who retired in his mid 70s), powerhouse Michigan Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) (who stepped down at 87), or former Senator John Glenn (D-OH), who served until he was 77 and flew on the space shuttle that same year!
On the flip side, there have been plenty of members of Congress whose mental acuity is questionable, regardless of age. When we tweeted about Nikki Haley’s ageist comment, one of our followers aptly responded: “Then we need competency tests for ALL of them!”
There are myriad examples of highly accomplished seniors who have been leaders in their respective fields:
Warren Buffett, business magnate, investor, philanthropist (92)
Fran Gehry, legendary architect (93)
LaDonna Harris, Native American leader/activist (91)
Jasper Johns, world-renowned artist (92)
Ralph Lauren, fashion mogul (83)
Norman Lear, tv producer/creator of “All in the Family” (100)
George Takei, actor and activist (85)
Gloria Steinem, feminist writer and activist (88)
To the best of our knowledge, no one has demanded that these leaders step down or take mental competency tests. If they can continue doing what they do well into their 80s and 90s, why shouldn’t the President of the United States, surrounded as he (or she) is with an immense support infrastructure, from White House staff to advisors and cabinet members? In the year 2023, it is time for our society to re-examine its biases toward seniors. If racism, sexism, able-ism and all the other “isms” have no place in a society striving for tolerance, then neither should ageism.
Walter Gottlieb is Director of Communications at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Are Social Security and Medicare Suddenly Safe? Not by a Long Shot.
During Tuesday’s State of the Union, President Biden coaxed Republicans to agree to take Social Security and Medicare cuts “off the table” in the debt ceiling standoff. It was an impressive piece of real-time negotiation on the president’s part – on live tv no less! But does that mean seniors’ earned benefits are suddenly safe from GOP assault? The short answer is: not by a long shot.
As our legislative director, Dan Adcock, told the Washington Examiner, “I think the way the president played it was masterful in getting Republicans to make that commitment, but it was not like it was signed in blood, either.”
Adcock says that seniors’ advocates are not going to let their guard down simply because Republicans applauded during a speech for not cutting Social Security and Medicare. For one thing, the moment of apparent consensus came right after MAGA members, led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), accused President Biden of ‘lying’ when he said that “some Republicans” want to sunset both programs after five years. He was referring to a plan from Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) that would do exactly that.
Therein lies the problem. Republicans’ definition of what constitutes “cutting” Social Security and Medicare is somewhat squirrelly. Senator Scott’s plan is only the most glaring example. Obviously, any proposal that subjects Social Security and Medicare to an up or down vote every five years could potentially cut – if not END – both programs. Scott spent the rest of the week after the State of the Union defending his plan and, for good measure, repeating his false claim that the Inflation Reduction Act cut Medicare (when, in fact, it saved Medicare billions of dollars.)
If Scott’s proposal were the only one, advocates may not be as worried. But there are other GOP plans that would jeopardize seniors’ earned benefits. Many of those have come to the fore during the debt ceiling standoff.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green heckles President Biden during the State of the Union
The House Republican Study Committee’s 2022 budget blueprint – endorsed by more than 180 GOP members of Congress – contained outright benefit cuts. It would raise the Social Security full retirement age to 70, slashing lifetime benefits for some seniors by more than 20%. The GOP blueprint also would reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) and means-test benefits. All of those are cuts, plain and simple.
As Arthur Delaney of the Huffington Post pointed out this week, Republicans seem to have a very different definition of the word “cut.”
When Republicans say they oppose benefit cuts, there’s an important caveat – they’re often referring to cuts that wouldn’t affect current retirees or people near retirement, such as Americans older than age 54. – Huffington Post, 2/8/23
First of all, any reduction in COLAs (which multiple Republican proposals include) would impact current beneficiaries immediately. Secondly, slashing benefits for future retirees is a cut – even if it doesn’t affect today’s seniors. As we have pointed out many times, younger adults will rely on their Social Security and Medicare benefits even more than their parents and grandparents do now. Many of the GOP’s “entitlement reform” plans definitely would impact Gen Z, Millennials and some Gen X’ers when they retire.
“All of the evidence is that they want to do things like increase the retirement age. That is cutting Social Security… But they’re in a box because it’s highly unpopular.” – Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), 2/8/23
Yes, public polling consistently shows that bipartisan majorities of voters oppose benefit cuts. But they overwhelmingly support bringing more revenue into the program. Democrats introduced legislation in the last Congress to keep Social Security’s trust fund solvent by adjusting the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy contribute their fair share. Of all the solutions that Republicans favor, they apparently cannot stomach any revenue increases – no matter how equitable – which leaves them with one option: cut benefits. That is why, as Dan Adcock put it, “We’re not going to let our guard down” anytime soon.
Ageism is Alive and Well
Upon kicking off her presidential campaign this week, Nikki Haley said politicians 75 years of age or older should be subject to mental competency tests. It was a cheap political shot at President Biden and her rival in the primaries, Donald Trump. But it was more than that. Haley’s statement is blatantly ageist. Of course, of all the -isms (racism, sexism, able-ism, classism, etc.), the targeting of older people remains one of the most socially acceptable – probably leading Haley to believe that her jab at senior politicians was safe. That doesn’t make it any less offensive.
Haley’s comment was not an outlier. During a panel discussion Wednesday on CNN Tonight spurred by Haley’s remarks, pundit Patrick McEnroe complained that there are too many older politicians in Washington. There was no pushback from the rest of the panel, of which McEnroe and anchor Alisyn Camerota were by far the oldest members (at 56). Imagine if a CNN panelist (or presidential candidate) commented that there were too many members of a particular race or ethnic group — or people with disabilities — in politics. The pushback would have been intense and immediate. Not so for ageism. Apparently, it’s still okay.
President Biden is the target of almost daily ridicule and criticism about his age. Many pundits argue that he is simply “too old” to serve a second term. (Note that the Founding Fathers did not impose an upper age limit on eligibility for the Presidency, only a lower one – 35 years of age.) While President Biden may suffer from verbal gaffes, a speech impediment, and some memory lapses, his chronological age should not disqualify him from serving a second term.
Age and hard-earned wisdom should be considered an asset in politics. As writer Jack Goldstone noted in the Financial Review “A leader with decades of experience is likely to have encountered various crises before and to know how to respond effectively.” To this point, the mainstream media were rightly impressed when President Biden skillfully baited Republicans into agreeing not to cut Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling debate during the State of the Union. Pundits correctly noted that his five decades as a politician and public office holder equipped him with the skills to outsmart the opposition on live tv in front of millions of viewers.
Rather than being judged by his chronological age, the President should be assessed by his performance in office, including his list of legislative accomplishments and handling of both domestic and foreign policy crises. Primary and general election voters should decide for themselves whether he is competent and fit to serve, not ageist candidates and pundits.
Unfortunately, the ageism directed at President Biden is typical. Despite their enormous contributions to our country, seniors are continually devalued as members of society. When someone calls another person “old,” it’s understood as an insult, not a sign of respect.
“In our society, older people too often are considered to be absent and invisible,” says our senior policy expert, Anne Montgomery, a longtime advocate for seniors and people with disabilities. “There are other cultures, though, where you are considered more important as you get older. The elderly have lived longer and accumulated wisdom that is useful to society.”
She’s right. In the U.S. and some other Western societies, “elder” is a bad word instead of a sign of respect. “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.”
The consequences are real. As Dinman writes, ageism can lead to poor physical health and shorten lives. It also can lead to “increased social isolation and loneliness.” In 2021, the World Health Organization reported that ageism can cost society billions of dollars in lost productivity and opportunity.
So, what about the claim that older politicians shouldn’t hold high public office? There have been plenty of members of Congress who have served admirably – and in lofty leadership positions – well into their late 70s and 80s. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is 84. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), an outspoken member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, is 86. Former House Speaker and current congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is 82. Legendary Congressman and voting rights crusader John Lewis (D-GA) served nobly until he died at age 80.
On the other side of the Capitol, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is 88. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is 89. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is 81. Some of these members of Congress are controversial, but arguably fully mentally competent and more than capable of representing their constituents and leading their colleagues.
When considering elder lawmakers of years past, we remember former House Speaker Tip O’Neill (who retired in his mid 70s), powerhouse Michigan Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) (who stepped down at 87), or former Senator John Glenn (D-OH), who served until he was 77 and flew on the space shuttle that same year!
On the flip side, there have been plenty of members of Congress whose mental acuity is questionable, regardless of age. When we tweeted about Nikki Haley’s ageist comment, one of our followers aptly responded: “Then we need competency tests for ALL of them!”
There are myriad examples of highly accomplished seniors who have been leaders in their respective fields:
Warren Buffett, business magnate, investor, philanthropist (92)
Fran Gehry, legendary architect (93)
LaDonna Harris, Native American leader/activist (91)
Jasper Johns, world-renowned artist (92)
Ralph Lauren, fashion mogul (83)
Norman Lear, tv producer/creator of “All in the Family” (100)
George Takei, actor and activist (85)
Gloria Steinem, feminist writer and activist (88)
To the best of our knowledge, no one has demanded that these leaders step down or take mental competency tests. If they can continue doing what they do well into their 80s and 90s, why shouldn’t the President of the United States, surrounded as he (or she) is with an immense support infrastructure, from White House staff to advisors and cabinet members? In the year 2023, it is time for our society to re-examine its biases toward seniors. If racism, sexism, able-ism and all the other “isms” have no place in a society striving for tolerance, then neither should ageism.
Walter Gottlieb is Director of Communications at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Raising the Social Security Retirement Age is a Benefit Cut
In recent weeks, several of our social media commenters have challenged us to “NAME ONE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE!” OK, how about: Senator Rick Scott’s proposal that Social Security and Medicare be subject to and up or down vote every five years? That could not only cut these programs, but potentially end Social Security and Medicare as we know them; Senator Ron Johnson’s proposal to change Social Security and Medicare from “mandatory” to “discretionary” spending programs – subjecting them to the volatility of annual budget negotiations; and the House Republican Study Committee’s 2022 blueprint, which would reduce Social Security COLAs and means test benefits.
But none of these plans would cut benefits as blatantly as GOP proposals to raise the Social Security full retirement age from 67 to 70. This would amount to a 23% lifetime benefit cut for some seniors. Why? Because when you claim Social Security before full retirement age, your monthly benefits are permanently reduced.
Conservative backers of this idea insist that life expectancy has increased and people are able to continue working and earning income well into their 60s, so no harm, no foul. Except that neither is really true. Life expectancy for many demographic groups has actually decreased in the past few years, especially for communities of color. Secondly, Americans in physically demanding jobs may not be able to continue working until age 70. They would have no choice but to claim benefits early and lose sorely-needed income.
The L.A. Times’ Michael Hiltzik drives home this point in a column aptly entitled, The Stupid and Dishonest Idea of Raising the Social Security Retirement Age is Back:
“As for whether it’s ‘easier’ to work into one’s 70s than it used to be, that may be true for authors of think tank papers in air conditioned offices, but not for the millions of Americans who spend their careers hauling, digging, driving and building…” – Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, 2/2/23
The proposal’s backers insist that something must be done to shore up Social Security’s finances before the projected 2035 insolvency date of the program’s trust fund – and raising the retirement age would save money. A key House Republican told the Washington Post‘s Tony Romm:
“We have no choice but to make hard decisions.” – Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), chair of the House Republican Study Committee
For conservatives, those “hard decisions” always seem to demand that seniors bear the burden through benefit cuts, rather than by bringing more revenue into the program. Democrats have introduced legislation do increase revenue by adjusting the payroll wage cap — so that high-earners begin contributing their fair share to Social Security. That alone could extend the solvency of the trust fund for decades. (Later this month, millionaires will stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the calendar year.)
Not a single GOP member of Congress has signed onto legislation to adjust the payroll wage cap. Instead, key Republicans insist that “entitlements” (Social Security and Medicare) must be reformed.
“GOP lawmakers have been counseled by a wide array of right-leaning groups, including the Heritage Foundation, that the new majority should consider significant changes to entitlements as part of their commitment to cutting spending and balancing the budget.” – Washington Post, 1/24/23
Many congressional Republicans conflate seniors’ earned benefits with the federal debt issue, even though Social Security and Medicare Part A are completely self-funded by American workers and employers. They don’t contribute a penny to the debt. None other than Ronald Reagan declared in 1984, “Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.”
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the number one driver of the debt is tax breaks. But Republicans ignore the $2 trillion that the Trump/GOP tax cuts added to the debt. Instead of calling for repeal of those tax cuts, the GOP wants to make them permanent. This is a dubious set of priorities at a time when the wealthy and profitable corporations are by and large thriving, while some seniors — racked by the pandemic and high inflation — are barely surviving.
GOP Takeover, Debt Ceiling Revive Some Really Bad Ideas
Republican proposals to cut taxes for the wealthy and undermine Social Security and Medicare have come back like a bad dream with the GOP takeover of the House and the debt ceiling standoff. We spoke to our senior legislative representative, Maria Freese, about what these proposals would really do — and who they benefit. Hint: the answer is NOT working people and retirees.
Q: The debt ceiling standoff and the GOP takeover of the House seem to have brought back some really bad ideas.
A: That’s true. Suddenly we’re hearing about the Balanced Budget Amendment and the Fair Tax Act, along with other proposals that would undermine Social Security and Medicare, like the TRUST Act.
Q: The TRUST Act would allow lawmakers to enact cuts to seniors’ earned benefits without really getting their fingerprints on it. But how would, say, the Fair Tax Act affect these programs?
A: The Fair Tax Act replaces all federal taxes with a national sales tax. Not only is that extremely regressive, because it would hit lower income people the hardest, but it would eliminate the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare. This means all current retirees would be forced to pay for their benefits twice – once through the payroll taxes they already paid through their working lives and again every time they buy a loaf of bread or pay for a prescription.
Q: Republicans in Congress like to talk about “saving” Social Security and Medicare, which do face significant funding challenges. But their solutions always seem to involve benefit cuts.
A: Absolutely. They want seniors themselves to bear the burden of restoring the fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare, when there are revenue-side solutions that would do the job — including eliminating or adjusting the payroll wage cap on FICA contributions — so that the wealthy begin paying their fair share into the system.
Q: Conservatives are careful to say that they’re not going to do anything that affects current beneficiaries, as if adults who haven’t yet reached retirement can afford to have their future benefits cut.
A: That’s right. If anything, today’s younger adults will rely on Social Security and Medicare even more than current retirees do. And that’s because of multiple factors like ongoing wealth inequality, flat wages, soaring student debt, the demise of traditional pensions, and other things that prevent younger people from saving enough for their senior years. And by the way, one of the most common conservative proposals, adopting the ‘Chained CPI’ for calculating Social Security COLAs, would definitely reduce today’s retirees’ benefits.
Q: Yes, the conservatives are pretty cagey. They never come right out and say they’re going to “cut” benefits, but that’s exactly what most of their proposals would do.
A: Right. They make their proposals sound like technical or procedural changes. But raising the retirement age to 70 is a benefit cut. Means testing Social Security is a benefit cut. Reducing payments to Medicare providers could ultimately reduce the quality and affordability of care for seniors – which effectively is a benefit cut.
Q: You have a metaphor for what they’re doing. Remind us what it is?
A: The so-called procedural or technical changes Republicans propose are like what a magician does with misdirection. Magicians direct your attention to their left hand — “Nothing going on here!” — while the right hand steals your watch. In other words, “We’re not touching your Social Security and Medicare, we’re just making these little changes over here.” But the only way to achieve their austerity goals (without raising revenue) is by gutting Social Security and Medicare.
Q: So why do we see conservatives trying to undermine Social Security and Medicare (while claiming to want to “save” them) year after year?
A: They keep doing it because they are determined to shrink the size of the government, which means you can’t raise taxes. The only thing left to do is gut programs. This benefits their wealthy and corporate patrons who constantly are striving to pay less in taxes. This approach shifts responsibility further away from the wealthy elites and toward the middle and working classes. Plus there’s an ideological element to it. “Everyone must have skin in the game! No government handouts!” Of course, working people pay into Social Security and Medicare for most of their lives. They’ve earned those benefits, and no one should take those away.
Nikki Haley’s Call for Mental Competency Tests Proves that Ageism is Alive and Well
Upon kicking off her presidential campaign this week, Nikki Haley said politicians 75 years of age or older should be subject to mental competency tests. It was a cheap political shot at President Biden and her rival in the primaries, Donald Trump. But it was more than that. Haley’s statement is blatantly ageist. Of course, of all the -isms (racism, sexism, able-ism, classism, etc.), the targeting of older people remains one of the most socially acceptable – probably leading Haley to believe that her jab at senior politicians was safe. That doesn’t make it any less offensive.
Haley’s comment was not an outlier. During a panel discussion Wednesday on CNN Tonight spurred by Haley’s remarks, pundit Patrick McEnroe complained that there are too many older politicians in Washington. There was no pushback from the rest of the panel, of which McEnroe and anchor Alisyn Camerota were by far the oldest members (at 56). Imagine if a CNN panelist (or presidential candidate) commented that there were too many members of a particular race or ethnic group — or people with disabilities — in politics. The pushback would have been intense and immediate. Not so for ageism. Apparently, it’s still okay.
President Biden is the target of almost daily ridicule and criticism about his age. Many pundits argue that he is simply “too old” to serve a second term. (Note that the Founding Fathers did not impose an upper age limit on eligibility for the Presidency, only a lower one – 35 years of age.) While President Biden may suffer from verbal gaffes, a speech impediment, and some memory lapses, his chronological age should not disqualify him from serving a second term.
Age and hard-earned wisdom should be considered an asset in politics. As writer Jack Goldstone noted in the Financial Review “A leader with decades of experience is likely to have encountered various crises before and to know how to respond effectively.” To this point, the mainstream media were rightly impressed when President Biden skillfully baited Republicans into agreeing not to cut Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling debate during the State of the Union. Pundits correctly noted that his five decades as a politician and public office holder equipped him with the skills to outsmart the opposition on live tv in front of millions of viewers.
Rather than being judged by his chronological age, the President should be assessed by his performance in office, including his list of legislative accomplishments and handling of both domestic and foreign policy crises. Primary and general election voters should decide for themselves whether he is competent and fit to serve, not ageist candidates and pundits.
Unfortunately, the ageism directed at President Biden is typical. Despite their enormous contributions to our country, seniors are continually devalued as members of society. When someone calls another person “old,” it’s understood as an insult, not a sign of respect.
“In our society, older people too often are considered to be absent and invisible,” says our senior policy expert, Anne Montgomery, a longtime advocate for seniors and people with disabilities. “There are other cultures, though, where you are considered more important as you get older. The elderly have lived longer and accumulated wisdom that is useful to society.”
She’s right. In the U.S. and some other Western societies, “elder” is a bad word instead of a sign of respect. “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.”
The consequences are real. As Dinman writes, ageism can lead to poor physical health and shorten lives. It also can lead to “increased social isolation and loneliness.” In 2021, the World Health Organization reported that ageism can cost society billions of dollars in lost productivity and opportunity.
So, what about the claim that older politicians shouldn’t hold high public office? There have been plenty of members of Congress who have served admirably – and in lofty leadership positions – well into their late 70s and 80s. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is 84. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), an outspoken member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, is 86. Former House Speaker and current congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is 82. Legendary Congressman and voting rights crusader John Lewis (D-GA) served nobly until he died at age 80.
On the other side of the Capitol, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is 88. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is 89. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is 81. Some of these members of Congress are controversial, but arguably fully mentally competent and more than capable of representing their constituents and leading their colleagues.
When considering elder lawmakers of years past, we remember former House Speaker Tip O’Neill (who retired in his mid 70s), powerhouse Michigan Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) (who stepped down at 87), or former Senator John Glenn (D-OH), who served until he was 77 and flew on the space shuttle that same year!
On the flip side, there have been plenty of members of Congress whose mental acuity is questionable, regardless of age. When we tweeted about Nikki Haley’s ageist comment, one of our followers aptly responded: “Then we need competency tests for ALL of them!”
There are myriad examples of highly accomplished seniors who have been leaders in their respective fields:
Warren Buffett, business magnate, investor, philanthropist (92)
Fran Gehry, legendary architect (93)
LaDonna Harris, Native American leader/activist (91)
Jasper Johns, world-renowned artist (92)
Ralph Lauren, fashion mogul (83)
Norman Lear, tv producer/creator of “All in the Family” (100)
George Takei, actor and activist (85)
Gloria Steinem, feminist writer and activist (88)
To the best of our knowledge, no one has demanded that these leaders step down or take mental competency tests. If they can continue doing what they do well into their 80s and 90s, why shouldn’t the President of the United States, surrounded as he (or she) is with an immense support infrastructure, from White House staff to advisors and cabinet members? In the year 2023, it is time for our society to re-examine its biases toward seniors. If racism, sexism, able-ism and all the other “isms” have no place in a society striving for tolerance, then neither should ageism.
Walter Gottlieb is Director of Communications at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Are Social Security and Medicare Suddenly Safe? Not by a Long Shot.
During Tuesday’s State of the Union, President Biden coaxed Republicans to agree to take Social Security and Medicare cuts “off the table” in the debt ceiling standoff. It was an impressive piece of real-time negotiation on the president’s part – on live tv no less! But does that mean seniors’ earned benefits are suddenly safe from GOP assault? The short answer is: not by a long shot.
As our legislative director, Dan Adcock, told the Washington Examiner, “I think the way the president played it was masterful in getting Republicans to make that commitment, but it was not like it was signed in blood, either.”
Adcock says that seniors’ advocates are not going to let their guard down simply because Republicans applauded during a speech for not cutting Social Security and Medicare. For one thing, the moment of apparent consensus came right after MAGA members, led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), accused President Biden of ‘lying’ when he said that “some Republicans” want to sunset both programs after five years. He was referring to a plan from Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) that would do exactly that.
Therein lies the problem. Republicans’ definition of what constitutes “cutting” Social Security and Medicare is somewhat squirrelly. Senator Scott’s plan is only the most glaring example. Obviously, any proposal that subjects Social Security and Medicare to an up or down vote every five years could potentially cut – if not END – both programs. Scott spent the rest of the week after the State of the Union defending his plan and, for good measure, repeating his false claim that the Inflation Reduction Act cut Medicare (when, in fact, it saved Medicare billions of dollars.)
If Scott’s proposal were the only one, advocates may not be as worried. But there are other GOP plans that would jeopardize seniors’ earned benefits. Many of those have come to the fore during the debt ceiling standoff.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green heckles President Biden during the State of the Union
The House Republican Study Committee’s 2022 budget blueprint – endorsed by more than 180 GOP members of Congress – contained outright benefit cuts. It would raise the Social Security full retirement age to 70, slashing lifetime benefits for some seniors by more than 20%. The GOP blueprint also would reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) and means-test benefits. All of those are cuts, plain and simple.
As Arthur Delaney of the Huffington Post pointed out this week, Republicans seem to have a very different definition of the word “cut.”
When Republicans say they oppose benefit cuts, there’s an important caveat – they’re often referring to cuts that wouldn’t affect current retirees or people near retirement, such as Americans older than age 54. – Huffington Post, 2/8/23
First of all, any reduction in COLAs (which multiple Republican proposals include) would impact current beneficiaries immediately. Secondly, slashing benefits for future retirees is a cut – even if it doesn’t affect today’s seniors. As we have pointed out many times, younger adults will rely on their Social Security and Medicare benefits even more than their parents and grandparents do now. Many of the GOP’s “entitlement reform” plans definitely would impact Gen Z, Millennials and some Gen X’ers when they retire.
“All of the evidence is that they want to do things like increase the retirement age. That is cutting Social Security… But they’re in a box because it’s highly unpopular.” – Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), 2/8/23
Yes, public polling consistently shows that bipartisan majorities of voters oppose benefit cuts. But they overwhelmingly support bringing more revenue into the program. Democrats introduced legislation in the last Congress to keep Social Security’s trust fund solvent by adjusting the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy contribute their fair share. Of all the solutions that Republicans favor, they apparently cannot stomach any revenue increases – no matter how equitable – which leaves them with one option: cut benefits. That is why, as Dan Adcock put it, “We’re not going to let our guard down” anytime soon.
Ageism is Alive and Well
Upon kicking off her presidential campaign this week, Nikki Haley said politicians 75 years of age or older should be subject to mental competency tests. It was a cheap political shot at President Biden and her rival in the primaries, Donald Trump. But it was more than that. Haley’s statement is blatantly ageist. Of course, of all the -isms (racism, sexism, able-ism, classism, etc.), the targeting of older people remains one of the most socially acceptable – probably leading Haley to believe that her jab at senior politicians was safe. That doesn’t make it any less offensive.
Haley’s comment was not an outlier. During a panel discussion Wednesday on CNN Tonight spurred by Haley’s remarks, pundit Patrick McEnroe complained that there are too many older politicians in Washington. There was no pushback from the rest of the panel, of which McEnroe and anchor Alisyn Camerota were by far the oldest members (at 56). Imagine if a CNN panelist (or presidential candidate) commented that there were too many members of a particular race or ethnic group — or people with disabilities — in politics. The pushback would have been intense and immediate. Not so for ageism. Apparently, it’s still okay.
President Biden is the target of almost daily ridicule and criticism about his age. Many pundits argue that he is simply “too old” to serve a second term. (Note that the Founding Fathers did not impose an upper age limit on eligibility for the Presidency, only a lower one – 35 years of age.) While President Biden may suffer from verbal gaffes, a speech impediment, and some memory lapses, his chronological age should not disqualify him from serving a second term.
Age and hard-earned wisdom should be considered an asset in politics. As writer Jack Goldstone noted in the Financial Review “A leader with decades of experience is likely to have encountered various crises before and to know how to respond effectively.” To this point, the mainstream media were rightly impressed when President Biden skillfully baited Republicans into agreeing not to cut Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling debate during the State of the Union. Pundits correctly noted that his five decades as a politician and public office holder equipped him with the skills to outsmart the opposition on live tv in front of millions of viewers.
Rather than being judged by his chronological age, the President should be assessed by his performance in office, including his list of legislative accomplishments and handling of both domestic and foreign policy crises. Primary and general election voters should decide for themselves whether he is competent and fit to serve, not ageist candidates and pundits.
Unfortunately, the ageism directed at President Biden is typical. Despite their enormous contributions to our country, seniors are continually devalued as members of society. When someone calls another person “old,” it’s understood as an insult, not a sign of respect.
“In our society, older people too often are considered to be absent and invisible,” says our senior policy expert, Anne Montgomery, a longtime advocate for seniors and people with disabilities. “There are other cultures, though, where you are considered more important as you get older. The elderly have lived longer and accumulated wisdom that is useful to society.”
She’s right. In the U.S. and some other Western societies, “elder” is a bad word instead of a sign of respect. “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.”
The consequences are real. As Dinman writes, ageism can lead to poor physical health and shorten lives. It also can lead to “increased social isolation and loneliness.” In 2021, the World Health Organization reported that ageism can cost society billions of dollars in lost productivity and opportunity.
So, what about the claim that older politicians shouldn’t hold high public office? There have been plenty of members of Congress who have served admirably – and in lofty leadership positions – well into their late 70s and 80s. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is 84. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), an outspoken member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, is 86. Former House Speaker and current congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is 82. Legendary Congressman and voting rights crusader John Lewis (D-GA) served nobly until he died at age 80.
On the other side of the Capitol, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is 88. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is 89. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is 81. Some of these members of Congress are controversial, but arguably fully mentally competent and more than capable of representing their constituents and leading their colleagues.
When considering elder lawmakers of years past, we remember former House Speaker Tip O’Neill (who retired in his mid 70s), powerhouse Michigan Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) (who stepped down at 87), or former Senator John Glenn (D-OH), who served until he was 77 and flew on the space shuttle that same year!
On the flip side, there have been plenty of members of Congress whose mental acuity is questionable, regardless of age. When we tweeted about Nikki Haley’s ageist comment, one of our followers aptly responded: “Then we need competency tests for ALL of them!”
There are myriad examples of highly accomplished seniors who have been leaders in their respective fields:
Warren Buffett, business magnate, investor, philanthropist (92)
Fran Gehry, legendary architect (93)
LaDonna Harris, Native American leader/activist (91)
Jasper Johns, world-renowned artist (92)
Ralph Lauren, fashion mogul (83)
Norman Lear, tv producer/creator of “All in the Family” (100)
George Takei, actor and activist (85)
Gloria Steinem, feminist writer and activist (88)
To the best of our knowledge, no one has demanded that these leaders step down or take mental competency tests. If they can continue doing what they do well into their 80s and 90s, why shouldn’t the President of the United States, surrounded as he (or she) is with an immense support infrastructure, from White House staff to advisors and cabinet members? In the year 2023, it is time for our society to re-examine its biases toward seniors. If racism, sexism, able-ism and all the other “isms” have no place in a society striving for tolerance, then neither should ageism.
Walter Gottlieb is Director of Communications at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Raising the Social Security Retirement Age is a Benefit Cut
In recent weeks, several of our social media commenters have challenged us to “NAME ONE REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE!” OK, how about: Senator Rick Scott’s proposal that Social Security and Medicare be subject to and up or down vote every five years? That could not only cut these programs, but potentially end Social Security and Medicare as we know them; Senator Ron Johnson’s proposal to change Social Security and Medicare from “mandatory” to “discretionary” spending programs – subjecting them to the volatility of annual budget negotiations; and the House Republican Study Committee’s 2022 blueprint, which would reduce Social Security COLAs and means test benefits.
But none of these plans would cut benefits as blatantly as GOP proposals to raise the Social Security full retirement age from 67 to 70. This would amount to a 23% lifetime benefit cut for some seniors. Why? Because when you claim Social Security before full retirement age, your monthly benefits are permanently reduced.
Conservative backers of this idea insist that life expectancy has increased and people are able to continue working and earning income well into their 60s, so no harm, no foul. Except that neither is really true. Life expectancy for many demographic groups has actually decreased in the past few years, especially for communities of color. Secondly, Americans in physically demanding jobs may not be able to continue working until age 70. They would have no choice but to claim benefits early and lose sorely-needed income.
The L.A. Times’ Michael Hiltzik drives home this point in a column aptly entitled, The Stupid and Dishonest Idea of Raising the Social Security Retirement Age is Back:
“As for whether it’s ‘easier’ to work into one’s 70s than it used to be, that may be true for authors of think tank papers in air conditioned offices, but not for the millions of Americans who spend their careers hauling, digging, driving and building…” – Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, 2/2/23
The proposal’s backers insist that something must be done to shore up Social Security’s finances before the projected 2035 insolvency date of the program’s trust fund – and raising the retirement age would save money. A key House Republican told the Washington Post‘s Tony Romm:
“We have no choice but to make hard decisions.” – Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), chair of the House Republican Study Committee
For conservatives, those “hard decisions” always seem to demand that seniors bear the burden through benefit cuts, rather than by bringing more revenue into the program. Democrats have introduced legislation do increase revenue by adjusting the payroll wage cap — so that high-earners begin contributing their fair share to Social Security. That alone could extend the solvency of the trust fund for decades. (Later this month, millionaires will stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the calendar year.)
Not a single GOP member of Congress has signed onto legislation to adjust the payroll wage cap. Instead, key Republicans insist that “entitlements” (Social Security and Medicare) must be reformed.
“GOP lawmakers have been counseled by a wide array of right-leaning groups, including the Heritage Foundation, that the new majority should consider significant changes to entitlements as part of their commitment to cutting spending and balancing the budget.” – Washington Post, 1/24/23
Many congressional Republicans conflate seniors’ earned benefits with the federal debt issue, even though Social Security and Medicare Part A are completely self-funded by American workers and employers. They don’t contribute a penny to the debt. None other than Ronald Reagan declared in 1984, “Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.”
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the number one driver of the debt is tax breaks. But Republicans ignore the $2 trillion that the Trump/GOP tax cuts added to the debt. Instead of calling for repeal of those tax cuts, the GOP wants to make them permanent. This is a dubious set of priorities at a time when the wealthy and profitable corporations are by and large thriving, while some seniors — racked by the pandemic and high inflation — are barely surviving.
GOP Takeover, Debt Ceiling Revive Some Really Bad Ideas
Republican proposals to cut taxes for the wealthy and undermine Social Security and Medicare have come back like a bad dream with the GOP takeover of the House and the debt ceiling standoff. We spoke to our senior legislative representative, Maria Freese, about what these proposals would really do — and who they benefit. Hint: the answer is NOT working people and retirees.
Q: The debt ceiling standoff and the GOP takeover of the House seem to have brought back some really bad ideas.
A: That’s true. Suddenly we’re hearing about the Balanced Budget Amendment and the Fair Tax Act, along with other proposals that would undermine Social Security and Medicare, like the TRUST Act.
Q: The TRUST Act would allow lawmakers to enact cuts to seniors’ earned benefits without really getting their fingerprints on it. But how would, say, the Fair Tax Act affect these programs?
A: The Fair Tax Act replaces all federal taxes with a national sales tax. Not only is that extremely regressive, because it would hit lower income people the hardest, but it would eliminate the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare. This means all current retirees would be forced to pay for their benefits twice – once through the payroll taxes they already paid through their working lives and again every time they buy a loaf of bread or pay for a prescription.
Q: Republicans in Congress like to talk about “saving” Social Security and Medicare, which do face significant funding challenges. But their solutions always seem to involve benefit cuts.
A: Absolutely. They want seniors themselves to bear the burden of restoring the fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare, when there are revenue-side solutions that would do the job — including eliminating or adjusting the payroll wage cap on FICA contributions — so that the wealthy begin paying their fair share into the system.
Q: Conservatives are careful to say that they’re not going to do anything that affects current beneficiaries, as if adults who haven’t yet reached retirement can afford to have their future benefits cut.
A: That’s right. If anything, today’s younger adults will rely on Social Security and Medicare even more than current retirees do. And that’s because of multiple factors like ongoing wealth inequality, flat wages, soaring student debt, the demise of traditional pensions, and other things that prevent younger people from saving enough for their senior years. And by the way, one of the most common conservative proposals, adopting the ‘Chained CPI’ for calculating Social Security COLAs, would definitely reduce today’s retirees’ benefits.
Q: Yes, the conservatives are pretty cagey. They never come right out and say they’re going to “cut” benefits, but that’s exactly what most of their proposals would do.
A: Right. They make their proposals sound like technical or procedural changes. But raising the retirement age to 70 is a benefit cut. Means testing Social Security is a benefit cut. Reducing payments to Medicare providers could ultimately reduce the quality and affordability of care for seniors – which effectively is a benefit cut.
Q: You have a metaphor for what they’re doing. Remind us what it is?
A: The so-called procedural or technical changes Republicans propose are like what a magician does with misdirection. Magicians direct your attention to their left hand — “Nothing going on here!” — while the right hand steals your watch. In other words, “We’re not touching your Social Security and Medicare, we’re just making these little changes over here.” But the only way to achieve their austerity goals (without raising revenue) is by gutting Social Security and Medicare.
Q: So why do we see conservatives trying to undermine Social Security and Medicare (while claiming to want to “save” them) year after year?
A: They keep doing it because they are determined to shrink the size of the government, which means you can’t raise taxes. The only thing left to do is gut programs. This benefits their wealthy and corporate patrons who constantly are striving to pay less in taxes. This approach shifts responsibility further away from the wealthy elites and toward the middle and working classes. Plus there’s an ideological element to it. “Everyone must have skin in the game! No government handouts!” Of course, working people pay into Social Security and Medicare for most of their lives. They’ve earned those benefits, and no one should take those away.