Home Instead Senior Care, Burbank

Showing posts with label americans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label americans. Show all posts

Americans 45 and older are new voting-age majority

Wednesday, May 4, 2011




WASHINGTON — For the first time, Americans 45 and older make up a majority of the voting-age population, giving older Americans wider influence in elections as the U.S. stands divided over curtailing Medicare and other benefits for seniors.


Along with the information about the growing influence of older adults, preliminary census estimates also show a decline in the number of married couples with children, slight growth in household size and a rapid rise in the number of Mexicans.
The findings, based on the latest publicly available government data, offer a preview of trends that will be detailed in the next round of 2010 census results being released this month that focus on age, household relationships and racial subgroups.
As a whole, the numbers point to a rapidly graying nation driven largely by the nation’s 78 million baby boomers, who are now between the ages of 46 and 65 and looking ahead to retirement.
“The center of American politics gets older,” said E. Mark Braden, a former chief counsel to the Republican National Committee who now advises elected officials and state legislatures. “Given the current fiscal concerns, it’s going to be a test case whether Republicans or Democrats can talk about entitlement reform without getting killed” politically.
Today there are roughly 119 million people 45 and older who make up 51 percent of the voting-age population, with Americans 55 and older representing a large bulk of that group. The new majority share is up from 46 percent in 2000 and 42 percent in 1990.
The preliminary figures are based on the Census Bureau’s 2009 population estimates as well as the 2009 American Community Survey, which samples 3 million U.S. households. The 2010 census surveyed the entire nation.
Broken down by subgroups, older boomers ages 55-64 were the fastest-growing group since 2000, jumping 43 percent to approximately 35 million. They were followed by seniors 85 and older, who increased 33 percent to more than 5.5 million, due largely to medical advances that have increased life spans.
The number of people ages 45-54 also rose sharply, up 18 percent to 45 million as young boomers moved into the ranks.
Based on actual election turnout, which is higher for older Americans, census data show that baby boomers and seniors ages 45 and older represent about 60 percent of voters in national races, judging by the 2008 presidential race. Nearly 1 out of 2 voters is 50 or older.
“Boomers have now crossed the line between thinking about Medicare and Social Security as an issue for their parents, to being worried about it for themselves,” said William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings Institution who did a broad analysis of available census data. “More so than their parents, boomers face increasing costs of medical care and the risk that government pensions will need to substitute for downturns in their 401(k) plans.
“Their interest in the viability of Medicare should be priority one for politicians seeking office, especially in aging regions of the country,” he said.
The census numbers come amid spirited debate over federal spending cuts in the wake of ballooning government debt. The Republican-controlled House last month approved a plan that would replace Medicare with a government payment individuals would use to buy private insurance. The measure would affect only those younger than 55; people that age or higher would continue to be covered by the current Medicare system. For the younger group, health care ultimately would cost them more.
The GOP plan is partly a bet that the key voting bloc of older Americans will accept Medicare changes if they are not affected. So far, however, the heaviest resistance has come from older people who are opposed to cuts that will affect their children and grandchildren or that conceivably could be expanded later to include them. Americans 55 and older now represent about 32 percent of the voting-age population.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has indicated he will hold a vote on the House proposal, challenging Senate Republicans to take a position that could alienate older voters. In Maine, which has the nation’s highest median age at 42, Republican Sen. Susan Collins already has come out against the GOP plan, and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe has voiced doubts, specifically citing the potential impact on the state’s aging residents.
More than half the states — about 28 — saw population declines over the last decade in the under-45 age group. Those states are mostly in the Northeast and Midwest and include Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania.
At the same time, 12 states primarily in the fast-growing South and West — including Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina — had increases of at least one-third in their 45-64 age group, which include mostly baby boomers. Those states’ median ages were somewhat lower due to immigration of Hispanics, who are more likely to raise families, and movement of young adults into their states.
Nationally, the median age climbed to about 36.8 from 35.3 in 2000.
David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP, a group representing Americans 50 and older, mentioned the increasing focus on older voters as public debate shifts more to entitlement reform. When it comes to Medicare and Social Security, older Americans have stronger feelings about keeping programs fully intact than 30-year-olds who aren’t thinking about retirement or who aren’t very familiar with the programs, he said.
Certner also cited the fast growth of the 85-plus population, evident in states such as Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania, which he said puts additional financial pressure on baby boomers to support elderly parents as well as children. A recent Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll found that 44 percent of boomers had little or no faith they’ll have enough money for retirement.
“One of the biggest issues in the last election was the protection of Medicare, and it’s setting up to be one of the biggest in the next one,” he said.
On the topic of families, the number of married couples with children dropped about 5.7 percent to 23.4 million, or roughly 20 percent of U.S. households. That’s down from a share of 23.5 percent in 2000 and 43 percent in 1960.
The decreases in traditional families were seen in 42 states plus the District of Columbia, while the remaining eight — Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia — saw increases. Those eight states generally have a higher number of either immigrants or Mormon residents.
In contrast, nonfamily households made up of single people such as seniors living alone, or opposite-sex or same-sex partners without children, jumped 13 percent to roughly 38 million. Married couples with no kids, which include younger couples and older empty-nesters, rose 9 percent to more than 32 million.
“In American politics, there’s a nostalgia element when invoking terms such as ‘family values.’ But that term is out of touch with the way many Americans live, given demographic changes such as gay marriage” and cohabitation, said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
Preliminary census numbers show that unmarried partners made up 6.5 million, or nearly 6 percent of U.S. households. Those figures include roughly 581,300, or a half-percent of households, composed of same-sex unmarried couples. Measured by shares, the District of Columbia ranked highest for same-sex unmarried households at 2 percent.
Official 2010 data on unmarried partner households will be released beginning in June, followed by figures on same-sex spouses in November.
Other findings:
• Married couples with children dropped since 2000 to an all-time low of roughly 1 in 5 households, surpassed by empty-nesters, childless couples, singles and unmarried partners.
• After a decades-long decline, average household size ticked higher to 2.63 from 2.59 in 2000. That’s due mostly to the growth of the Hispanic population, which tends to have larger families, as well as some recent “doubling up” of adult children moving back in with parents during the recession.
• Mexicans increased by roughly 50 percent over the last decade to roughly 32 million and now make up close to 66 percent of all Hispanics. They were followed by Puerto Ricans, at more than 4.4 million or 9 percent share; Cubans at 1.7 million or 3.5 percent share; and other Hispanics, at 10.5 million or 22 percent.
• Based on total population, people 45 and older represent 39 percent of U.S. residents, up from 34 percent in 2000. People 65 and older now make up roughly 13 percent and seniors 85 and older about 2 percent. The 65-plus age group will make up nearly 1 in 5 Americans by 2030, after the youngest boomers turn 65.
• Utah had the youngest population with a median age of 29.
• Chinese are the most common Asians in the U.S., at 3.2 million, or roughly 23 percent share. But people from India are the fastest-growing, at 2.6 million or nearly a 20 percent share. Indians now hold the biggest Asian share in about 23 states compared to 12 states for Chinese. They are followed in numbers by Filipinos, Vietnamese, Koreans and Japanese.

Is America Failing Our Nation's Seniors?

Monday, April 25, 2011

In 2008, the Meals On Wheels Association of America released the results of a groundbreaking research report entitled "The Causes, Consequences and Future of Senior Hunger in America" that our Foundation had commissioned. The findings of the co-principal investigators, Dr. James Ziliak of the University of Kentucky and Dr. Craig Gundersen then of the University of Iowa, were shocking and unacceptable. In 2001, the research showed, five million seniors in the United States, or one in nine, were facing the threat of hunger. The next year, we asked the same researcher examine several more years of date and update the report. By 2007, the number of seniors facing the threat of hunger was six million. Any reader who can do the math knows that is a 20 percent increase in just six years. But without context, the average reader might not be able to grasp the magnitude of the number. Let me give some context. There are 33 states in this country that each have total state populations of less than 6 million.
Is America failing our nation's seniors? And if we are moving in the clearly wrong direction where senior hunger is concerned today, what of the future?
The baby boomers (and I am one of them) are now entering the ranks of older persons, and it is safe to assume that we will be a demanding lot, constantly in search of more and different kinds of services. We will not likely want to live in assisted living or the even less desirous nursing home environment as generations before us have. Rather, we will want to live independently in community settings. Yet that raises a critical question: Can community-based organizations and the concomitant services needed keep up with the demand? Or will America, having failed to turn the tide on senior hunger with the current generation continue down the path of failure with the next-- and much larger-- generation of our nation's seniors?
It is easy to focus on the short term view of the past, the last couple of decades that have seen a faltering economy that went from great highs to unparalleled, sustained lows and a burgeoning population of older adults, and to lay the blame here. But we have seen depression in the place of deep recession in the more distant past. And we have seen population surges like that of the last century, not driven by birth rates, but by immigrants who came to these shores seeking a better life. Many of those numbers of older persons, like my own grandparents who came into his vast, wonderful land of ours, this great melting pot, seeking the American dream. Even with its own troubles, America did not fail them.
But it is different for millions of older Americans today. At least 6 million in 2007; and while we do not have more current research to account for the impact of the economy of the past several years on seniors, one researcher has suggested that the real number of those facing hunger's real, ominous and daily threat might be 30 percent higher.
All the while, when the national attention, or should I say national debate, turns to seniors and senior issues, the discussion seems confined primarily to Social Security and Medicare - "their programs," those entitlements to which individuals who have paid into the system look for help to sustain them in their elder years. They regard their payments to the trust funds as investments, and they expect to reap some advantages from those investments. Fair enough. But because these programs are entitlements -- which means both that they guarantee some benefit and that they are costly to the budget to maintain (particularly as there are fewer and fewer young people paying into the system than in years past) -- they have become the rallying cry for those who say "look at what we do for seniors. What more do they want?"
Well, sometimes it's not about what they want, but what they need. Feeding the hungry is not a response to an optional want. It's a moral obligation... and food is certainly something to which every man, woman and child is entitled. Plainly put, it's not good enough any longer for Meals On Wheels to be viewed as a feel-good, do-good social service program. Surely local Meals On Wheels programs are that, and they are integral parts of the fabric of every community. That is why the data show us that 99 percent of the American public views these programs positively. But that's not enough. Our elected officials love these programs, and we are grateful for that. At least once a year they are pleased to do a photo-op delivering a meal. But is once a year enough?
When budget issues arise in Congress and the two parties are duking it out on the floor of the Congress, Meals On Wheels generally comes up. But is it good enough to use the story of cutting off meals to seniors and then fail to make adequate funds available to meet the need, so that in the end, after the partisan sparring is over, Meals On Wheels programs in fact have to reduce the number of meals or the number of seniors they serve?
So, I ask the question again. Is America failing our nation's seniors? And, what do we do about it? We, at Meals On Wheels programs throughout the United States, continue to deliver the best services and meals that we can. We are asked to perform two separate tasks. First is simply to feed those seniors who would otherwise go hungry. Second -- and this sets Meals On Wheels and our services apart -- is to ensure that those being fed receive food that is nutritious; that meets government guidelines for nutritional composition; that is maintained at proper temperatures, even if they are being transported forty or more miles along with other meal deliveries being made to other seniors waiting for their food; that is medically, ethnically, and religiously appropriate; and that tastes good too.
Is America failing our nation's seniors? The statistics would say the answer is yes. But are we failing our nation's seniors? No. We are Meals On Wheels, and Meals On Wheels programs are not failing our nation's seniors. Our programs are a lifeline and an anchor for the hundreds of thousands of seniors who need a helping hand. Yes, we can and we will end senior hunger and provide nutritious meals at the same time. We have the courage of our convictions and we will stand up against those who would seek to shut us out and shut us down. There simply is no other option.
Stand with us. In this the richest nation on Earth no one should go hungry. We must not fail our nation's seniors. Stand with us in this fight.