More than 25 years ago President George H.W. Bush signed into law, with bi-partisan support, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is legislation that provides civil rights protection for people with disabilities. Amongst the many protections the bill affords the disabled community is the ability to access places of public accommodation. Because of the ADA, disabled persons have an easier time entering doctor’s offices, shopping centers, grocery stores, restaurants and other public places.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620), which despite its name, does severe harm to disabled persons. The bill creates additional and unnecessary roadblocks for the disabled community to file civil actions for violations of the ADA regarding places of public accommodation. Under current law an aggrieved individual who can’t access a business can file a complaint with United States Department of Justice, bring litigation or talk with the business owner. It should be noted under federal law that people who file lawsuits and are victorious are only entitled to injunctive relief (removal of the barrier) and attorney’s fees. They are not entitled to damage awards.

Under H.R. 620 the burden would be unfairly shifted to disabled persons to make sure the business community is complying with the ADA. For example, this legislation would force the aggrieved party to file written technical notice, often needing a lawyer, give the offending party 60 days to respond, then force the victim to wait another 120 days to see if “substantial progress” is made to fix the problem, before the matter can legally enter the court system. Is the United States Congress reasonably expecting people with a non-legal background to understand the technical intricacies of the ADA to file notice?

In addition, if businesses are not legally required to make their accommodations accessible under the ADA, what incentive do they have to comply before a complaint is filed in court? Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) who uses a wheelchair said on the House floor, “The idea that places of public accommodation should receive a free pass for six months before correctly implementing a law that has been a part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance.”

Presently, 16 million seniors have one or more disabilities, with mobility issues being the most common. Are proponents of the bill going to argue the elderly community should have to wait six months or more to visit a hospital or doctor’s office because it’s not accessible? Not to mention being barred from everyday activities like going shopping or the movies.

The ADA has been the law of the land for the past 28 years. Are members of Congress going to argue that businesses have not had enough time to comply with the ADA’s requirements? The ADA National Network, funded by the federal government, offers no cost technical assistance to businesses about how to comply under the law. Furthermore, this assistance is offered at 10 regional centers around the country, and there are tax credits available to businesses that remove barriers for the disabled community. Having almost 30 years of notice, tax credits and the ADA National Network, it’s hard to cry foul that the ADA is too onerous.

Lastly, proponents of the bill believe it’s a necessity because of unethical attorneys who are bringing frivolous lawsuits. People on both sides of this debate can agree that unwarranted litigation is a problem in this country. However, this bill does nothing to fix that problem! First, as referenced above, federal law does not permit plaintiffs to collect damages for cases filed under Title III of the ADA. While it’s true some states permit monetary damages for violations, the current proposal does nothing to change state law. Most importantly, what other member of a federally protected class must wait months to exercise their civil rights against discrimination? ​When Bush signed the ADA he said, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.” Sadly this legislation recreates exclusionary walls for disabled Americans that the ADA fought so hard to knock down. Presently, the United States Senate has shown better judgment than the House of Representatives, with 42 Senators promising to block any vote on this shameful legislation. While that is good news for the disabled community, let’s hope these senators’ commitment does not waiver.

​​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

Working at B’nai B’rith International during the past year has afforded me the opportunity to visit our sponsored Section 202 buildings across the country. B’nai B’rith in partnership with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsors Section 202 housing for low-income seniors throughout the United States comprising 38 buildings that serve more than 4,500 people. While touring the properties, I have gotten to talk with residents and see exactly how seniors benefit from living there. Learning about affordable housing is always a humbling experience, never more so than visiting the food pantries in the buildings. Staff members in multiple buildings explained to me how residents, unfortunately, at the end of the month, often don’t have enough money for food. Consequently, these food banks provide vital nutrition for low-income seniors who now don’t have to choose between food and healthcare.

According to HUD, the average annual income for a Section 202 household is around $13,300 or $1,108 or a month. Clearly Section 202 residents are not a group of people from great wealth. Given the type of resident these buildings attract, I am saddened a proposal introduced by HUD may RAISE residents’ rental contributions.

For people reading this blog, you have read correctly! The policy recently proposed by HUD could raise the rent on low-income seniors!

First the proposal changes how HUD calculates Section 202 rental contributions from 30% of adjusted income to 30% of gross income. Simply put this change will subject more of low-income seniors very limited financial resources to rental contributions. Secondly, the bill is requesting $50 a month minimum for rental contributions. To put this in perspective, this impacts people who make less than $2,000 a year, the exact type of person who the government should be looking to shield from further financial hardship.

The Administration and some members of Congress argue that government spending is out of control with our country’s debt reaching around $20 trillion dollars. There is no argument that our country’s debt needs to be tackled. However, addressing our debt on the back of elderly Americans is not acceptable. How is a better way of governing, one that leaves seniors without a roof over their head?

The proposed legislation slashes assistance for our most needy seniors by reducing their assistance for affordable housing. If taking away basic necessities for low-income seniors is required to return our country to greatness, I think the Administration’s definition of greatness is in my humble opinion morally bankrupt!

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

​In December, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted (3 to 2) to repeal net neutrality. Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T should treat all internet content equally. For example, net neutrality ensures that ISPs cannot charge more money or vary internet speeds based on the type of content you are trying to access. That could be news, social media, streaming video or the website of a business or friend.

Unfortunately, the FCC’s recent decision to repeal net neutrality could completely undue basic fairness for consumers by allowing ISPs to charge higher rates or vary internet speeds based upon the content users are trying to access. This means ISPs will be able to charge for content you currently receive for free or lower speeds for competitors’ products.

Furthermore, the FCC’s decision flies in the face of the public’s support for net neutrality which has surprising bi-partisan approval. A recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland indicated that 83 percent of respondents favored net neutrality. Breaking down the numbers even further, support for net neutrality was discovered amongst 89 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Independents.

While many associate this problem with younger individuals, older Americans will also feel the negative impact from the FCC’s decision. Research demonstrates that seniors actively use the web, with 67 percent of Americans 65 or older using the internet regularly. Taken one step further, 76 percent of seniors who use the internet do so at least once a day. Given how vital the internet is for so many seniors, it’s clear that the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality will have an impact on their daily lives.

Most importantly, older Americans have started to use the internet to gain better access to health care. Telemedicine and telehealth allows for patient monitoring, video chatting with doctors and an easier ability for physicians and their patients to transfer medical information. People are able to get the medical attention they need without having to travel long distances, which can too often be a daunting challenge for seniors in rural communities. According to the 2015 American Hospital Association report, 20 percent of Americans are from rural areas “where many do not have access to primary care or specialist services.” Older Americans in rural areas with chronic health conditions might find it challenging to travel to physician’s offices because of transportation or mobility issues. The internet has allowed people the ability to get medical attention without the hassle of long travel. However, the FCC’s decision regarding net neutrality could permit ISPs to play favorites between websites; resulting in web based health care services with slower internet times, or leave their customers with costlier bills.

According to Leslie Lenert, chief research information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, the benefits to telehealth such as direct consultations, medical education and the transfer of medical information from patients personal devices (i.e. heart rate monitors) to physicians, “could be constricted if they were treated differently than preferred traffic .” Consequently, older Americans might have to spend more money on internet fees to get the identical medical care they received before the FCC’s decision.

The internet has also helped seniors deal with social isolation by giving them an inexpensive way to stay in touch with family and friends. Tragically, eight million individuals over the age of 50 are impacted by isolation. Services like Facebook, FaceTime and Skype allow seniors to stay connected through the internet instead of traditional telephones. Seniors can video chat with grandchildren through FaceTime and Skype, and view pictures of family on Facebook. The FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality will allow ISPs to potentially charge consumers additional money to use this content which could place an unnecessary financial strain on older Americans for that valuable connection.

Too often, low-income seniors have to save pennies just to pay for health care, rent and food. Seniors living on a limited income should not be forced to absorb another unnecessary hike in their monthly expenditures stemming from more costly internet access. Whether it’s receiving vital medical care or simply staying in touch with family, the internet has made life easier and more enjoyable.

However, all is not lost for seniors! Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) recently introduced a bill that would overturn the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality. The legislation has bi-partisan support in the Senate, and should be endorsed by the White House and members of the House.

Sadly, the FCC’s decision regarding net neutrality may place roadblocks on older Americans ability to access the content they often need and use on the internet. Hopefully Congress and the Trump administration can build on Markey’s legislation and work together to ensure elderly Americans affordable access to the internet.

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

Ever wonder why so much attention is paid to the Census every ten years? Or why every decade the number of members in the House of Representatives for each state potentially changes? The answer is the United States Constitution mandates that every ten years the government conduct a population count of the country. Afterwards that statistical information is used, amongst other things, to reapportion the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, and determine how much funding cities and states receive from the federal government.

So why does the B’nai B’rith Center for Senior Services care about the Census? As the 2020 Census approaches there is a high-risk that seniors could be undercounted. For example, this is the first Census where the government intends for most people to be counted through the internet, with the Census Bureau’s goal of encouraging 80 percent of the population to respond through this medium. However, as many people are aware, seniors are less likely to use the internet. For instance, only 62 percent of seniors use the internet, consequently leaving about 18 million seniors who do not have familiarity to the Census Bureau’s preferred method of surveying people. To put 18 million people in perspective, only four states have populations that exceed 18 million. To make matters worse, the number of low-income seniors (less than 30,-000) who use the internet is 46 percent meaning more than half of these individuals do not use the internet.

While the Census plans to provide paper forms to neighborhoods with older-adult populations, the Bureau’s budget being terribly underfunded is a cause for major concern. The Bureau requested about $15.6 billion in funding for the 2020 Census, however, Congress only wants to spend $12.5 billion. Congress’ budget for the upcoming Census is the same amount of funding as what it cost to run the 2010 Census. Despite the use of technology, I don’t know how Congress can reasonably expect the Census to be conducted at the same price in 2020 that it cost in 2010, without adjusting for inflation. Consequently, the Bureau has unfortunately been forced to cut corners by canceling plans to test local outreach and messaging approaches that encourage people to participate in the Census. If there is potentially less money for advertising and education, seniors who are not internet savvy could be woefully neglected.

Problems like this have caused the Government Accountability Office, to label the 2020 Census as one of the federal government’s programs at a “High Risk” of failure!

If seniors are undercounted in the Census, what does that mean for the government programs they have come to rely on? Every year the federal government sends $600 billion to state and local governments for health programs like Medicaid, which are based on formulas which derive their numbers from the Census. If the Census is inaccurate, cities and states will not get the appropriate amount of funding they need to serve their populations. Furthermore, data from the Census is used to determine the number of seniors which live in a given community and the services they need to live independently, as mandated by the Older Americans Act. Kenneth Prewitt, former director of the Census Bureau explained the negative results of an inaccurate Census, “The consequences of not reaching that goal are substantial. The Veteran’s Administration wants to put a new hospital where it can serve elderly veterans. To do so, it needs measures of age and of veteran status that are accurate. A significant undercount puts the hospital in the wrong town. A poor-quality census means policies that miss their mark.”​The Census’ long term influence on important government programs that impact seniors is undeniable — therefore our country should take every step possible to ensure its accuracy. Fully funding the Census at $15.6 billion is a small fraction of the federal government’s budget, making it a smart financial investment for policy that has enormous consequences on all Americans.

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

We are delighted to report that Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) recently visited B’nai B’rith Covenant Apartments in Peoria, Illinois. This visit was a great opportunity for the Congresswoman to learn about the Section 202 program and see firsthand how seniors benefit from affordable housing. B’nai B’rith’s long history with Section 202 housing started in 1971 when we formed a partnership with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to sponsor housing for low-income seniors. The B’nai B’rith Senior Housing Network in the United States comprises 38 buildings and serves more than 8,000 people. B’nai B’rith International is the largest national Jewish sponsor of low-income housing for seniors in the country.

B’nai B’rith Covenant Apartments, like many of our sponsored buildings, are more than just apartment units. It is a residential community where seniors can age in place. The Congresswoman learned about the wonderful amenities the building offers such as low cost meals, salon, gift shop, grocery store, community rooms and libraries.

After taking a tour of the property, the Congresswoman gave remarks, took questions from residents and shared her positions on important topics that touch their everyday lives, such as Social Security, Medicare, rental subsidies and nutrition assistance. In addition, Bustos offered to help the residents with getting federal benefits from agencies like the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Bustos said, “I had a great discussion with the seniors of B'nai B'rith Covenant Apartments today about all of the issues affecting them and their families. Our seniors worked hard all of their lives and they deserve to retire with dignity, and that includes providing them with affordable housing options through the Section 202 program. I believe that all seniors should be able to retire with peace of mind which is why I'm fighting hard to protect the Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits they've earned.”

We thank Bustos for all her hard work to protect critical programs for seniors that enable them to retire with dignity. Too often Congress and the White House are debating policies that will inevitably cut important funding from federal programs that impact the lives of ordinary older Americans. Congressional visits like this allow B’nai B’rith residents the opportunity to be their own best advocate by speaking directly with the representative and making them aware of the human faces and stories behind federal programs that benefit seniors.​It was great that Bustos’ visit kicked off our 2018 congressional outreach efforts. We are thankful we were able to show off B’nai B’rith Covenant Apartments and most importantly all the great residents who call the building home.

​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

It has been a busy 2017 at the Center for Senior Services (CSS), and we are pleased to report on our advocacy efforts. Throughout the year we have been advocating on a wide range of senior issues relating to health care (Medicare and Medicaid), Social Security and affordable housing. Our work included meetings on Capitol Hill, organizing tours of B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings and co-sponsoring rallies on affordable housing. During the year we were excited that our work was noted by the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), The Times of Israel and the New York Jewish Week.

Our advocacy efforts went into high gear in March when the White House’s proposed 2018 “skinny” budget was released, which called for a 13 percent reduction in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget. A few months later when the administration’s more detailed budget was announced, B’nai B’rith was severely disappointed that Section 202, which is housing that was developed for low-income seniors, was underfunded and the White House proposed a rental increase for residents.

Staying on top of the issue, the CSS team started visiting senator and representative’s offices on Capitol Hill that represent B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings. Specifically, we met with offices that work on the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. These committees are responsible for writing legislation that funds rental subsidies for the Section 202 program. During the course of these meeting we explained to staff members how damaging the White House’s budget would be for low-income Section 202 residents. While the 2018 budget has not been finalized we are hopeful that our advocacy efforts on Capitol Hill will lead to the Section 202 program being funded more.

In addition, we followed up those visits by inviting members of Congress and their staff to tour B’nai B’rith Section 202 buildings throughout the country. We are pleased to report that Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) and Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), representing both political parties, toured our sponsored properties. Furthermore, three of the four members who visited B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings work on the Appropriations Committees. These tours were a fantastic opportunity for members of Congress to see the benefits of the Section 202 program, and gave residents a chance to speak with their elected representative. Residents were able to directly tell their member of Congress the vital role Section 202 housing plays in their lives.

B’nai B’rith was also pleased to co-host with LeadingAge the “Save HUD 202” Rally and partner with the National Low Income Housing Coalition for the “National Housing Day of Action” over the summer. These rallies took place on Capitol Hill and featured representatives and senators who spoke about the need for affordable housing. We were certainly delighted members of Congress who represent B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings attended the event.

Our advocacy during the course of the year didn’t just stop with affordable housing. We spoke out against the White House and Congress’ attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). After analyzing various proposed bills, B’nai B’rith was very concerned how these policies could negatively impact seniors. For example, many of the proposed replacement bills would have cut critical funding to Medicaid, allowed older Americans to be charged more for insurance, repealed vital taxes that help fund Medicare and waive important regulations that protect health care consumers. We spoke out on these issues by releasing press releases, blogs and joined with liked minded organizations opposing this legislation in a full page advertisement in Politico.

Recently, B’nai B’rith has been very vocal against the recently passed tax reform legislation. We expressed serious reservations about this bill because of the damaging impact it could have on funding for Medicare and Medicaid attributable to rising deficits that will give cover to members of Congress to slash spending. In addition, the negative consequences repealing the ACA’s individual mandate will have on older Americans. We brought our concerns straight to congressional offices during our regular scheduled Capitol Hill visits regarding Section 202. However, we certainly applaud Congress for not eliminating the Low Income Housing Tax Credit which is critical for affordable housing construction, and the medical expense deduction which is incredibly important to countless seniors with high health care costs.​The CSS team embarks on 2018 looking to continue our success from 2017. We will certainly look to invite more members of Congress and their staff to B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings, and advocate for the Section 202 program and other policies that are vital to seniors.

The right of every American to vote is one of the most cherished liberties in the United States. An individual’s ability to make his or her voice heard at the ballot box should be protected by all levels of government. However too often state legislatures are passing laws which make it more difficult for all people to vote, especially seniors. In particular, photo identification laws have made going to be polls too onerous for the elderly, and have chipped away at their ability to make their vote count on Election Day. In 2017, 17 states require citizens to show photo identification to participate in an election, which has put an unnecessary hardship on seniors, who are one of the least likely population groups to have a driver’s license or other government-issued photo ID.

A study conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice in 2006 (the latest year available) demonstrated that 18 percent, or eight million older voters, did not have a government ID. This can often be explained because many seniors give up their driver’s licenses, and consequently have an expired government ID.

Many people, upon hearing these numbers, might just say, “Why don’t seniors just get a government ID. How difficult can that be?” The problem for seniors is that obtaining government-issued identification can be cost-prohibitive and/or require extensive travel.

For example, a Harvard Law School study published by Richard Sobel, “The High Cost of ‘Free’ Photo Voter Identification Cards,” concluded that between public transportation expenses, fees associated with documents and waiting times, it could cost between $75 and $175 to obtain an ID. For low-income seniors who sometimes have to choose between health care and eating, a government ID is a luxury they just can’t afford. Furthermore, there are states that necessitate a birth certificate upon registering to vote. Many seniors were born before issuing birth certificates to a family was standard procedure. Even when a birth certificate can be located in a county clerk’s office, some elderly people would be required to travel to the cities in which they were born to pick up documentation. In addition, the validity of birth certificates at times can be called into question because it might contain minor errors regarding their name, especially for women who changed their last name when they married.

In 2014 Ruby Barber, a 92-year-old woman from Texas with an expired driver’s license, faced incredible obstacles to get an ID in order to vote. Incredibly, Barber was unable to obtain an identification card that would allow her to vote, despite providing her social security card, two utility bills, an expired driver’s license and a Medicare card. Barber couldn’t provide her birth certificate because one did not exist. Barber said, “I’m sure (my birth) was never reported because I was born in a farmhouse with a coal oil lamp.” Eventually Barber was granted her constitutional right to vote when her birthday was discovered in the 1940 U.S. Census. Baber’s story illustrates how burdensome voter identification laws can be for elderly Americans. These types of laws could discourage otherwise eligible voters from going to the polls on Election Day.

Outside of the obvious fact that every U.S. citizen has the right to vote, a small group of people can make a big difference in the result of an election. In 2014 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a study, “Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws,” that indicated that stringent voter ID laws can suppress voter turnout by two to three percentage points. Further to the point, the study demonstrated that senior voter turnout was decreased by one to two percentage points because of changes to voter identification laws. While mere percentage points might not seem like a lot of people, this reduction in voter turnout can mean thousands of lost votes in a single state. Elections can be won or lost based on a few thousand votes.

Proponents of voter identification laws argue they are needed to stop voter fraud at the polls. While voter fraud at the polls is a reasonable initial fear to have, studies and statistics don’t provide any evidence of meaningful voter fraud. Voter fraud is just not a problem in the United States. Professor Justin Levitt at California’s Loyola School of Law in a study discovered only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation, between 2000 and 2014, when 1 billion ballots were cast. Obviously any voter fraud is unacceptable, still, I don’t think 31 allegations of voter impersonation is enough justification to make it considerably more difficult for seniors to exercise their constitutionally protected right to vote.

In the U.S. we should be thinking of new and creative ways to increase voter turnout by passing legislation that ensures every senior entitled to vote is able to cast a ballot on Election Day. Sadly, state governments around the country have implemented policies that make the simple act of voting for seniors too burdensome all in the name of stopping fraudulent voting at the polls, a problem which doesn’t exist.

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

The House of Representatives in Congress recently introduced legislation called the “Tax Cut and Jobs Act,” which makes drastic changes to our country’s tax code. Unfortunately, some of the proposed changes might have a negative impact on the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The LIHTC is an affordable housing program administered by the Internal Revenue Service that awards tax credits to the private sector to spur construction that benefits low-income individuals. The LIHTC is responsible for around 90 percent of all current affordable housing construction in the United States, and has help create around 3 million apartments since it was established.

In particular, the LIHTC has benefited seniors in the B’nai B’rith Housing Network in St. Louis at Convent Place Apartments, and in Massachusetts at the Coolidge at Sudbury Apartments. The U.S. has an affordable housing shortage, particularly amongst seniors. It is predicted that by 2025, 12.2 million seniors will spend more than half of their incomes on housing.

While the tax reform legislation has no direct changes to the existing LIHTC, the other proposed changes could have unfortunate indirect consequences for affordable housing. First, the legislation lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent which means that corporations will have less incentive to purchase the tax credits. After the 2016 presidential election, the mere threat of tax reform caused the value of the LIHTC to go down. Tax reform that brings the corporate tax rate down to 20 percent without other modifications could be problematic for the tax credit.

Secondly, the tax reform proposal could threaten affordable housing by eliminating the use of private activity bonds that utilize the four percent credits from the LIHTC. Private activity bonds help finance around half of all LIHTC construction, therefore eliminating these bonds will have very serious consequences on the creation of new affordable housing, and the rehabilitation of existing stock.

Tax reform legislation should be viewed as a golden opportunity to strengthen the LIHTC, and it’s a shame that the current proposal does not accomplish that goal. For instance, the House’s bill could include parts of LIHTC legislation in the House and Senate that would fortify this affordable housing program. In addition, both these affordable housing bills have broad bi-partisan support in the House and Senate, which only increases their likelihood of passage if included as part of the greater tax reform effort.

The LIHTC is critically important to making sure that older Americans have a place to call home, and the tax reform legislation should not include proposals that could potentially make affordable housing for seniors more difficult to come by. ​

Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

Medicare is our national health insurance program for individuals 65 and older and permanently disabled people under the age of 65. Created in 1965, Medicare has made health care for seniors significantly more affordable and given elderly people peace of mind regarding their medical expenses. Medicare can be broken up into Medicare Part A (hospital insurance, skilled nursing, home health services and hospice care) Part B (doctor’s visits, lab tests, surgeries, wheelchairs and walkers), Part C (private health insurance plans) and Part D (prescription drug coverage). Given how vital Medicare is for seniors, it’s important to analyze how legislative proposals in Congress can impact the health care program’s long-term financial viability.

Throughout the year, Congress has spent time trying to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through various health care proposals. One of the proposals, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), would have dissolved the .9 percent Hospital Insurance trust fund payroll tax. This tax is directly responsible for helping fund the Medicare Part A Trust Fund. Recently, the Medicare Board of Trustees reported that Medicare Part A will be able to pay 100 percent of its obligations until 2029. However, had the ACHA become law, revenue for Part A would have been reduced by $59 billion, and caused the trust fund to be less solvent.

When members of the House of Representatives voted for the AHCA, I often wonder how they could explain voting for a health care bill which makes Medicare more insolvent. Members of Congress are always talking about Medicare’s fiscal future, well, cutting off the program’s funding is a sure fire why to guarantee insolvency.​Furthermore, Congress’ attempts to repeal and replace the ACA, whether through the AHCA or the Graham-Cassidy bill, would have been severely damaging for older Americans (55 to 64). Some older adults could have found their private health insurance to be cost prohibitive. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that older Americans would have suffered greatly if the AHCA became law. For example, a 64-year-old making $26,500 a year would have seen an increase in premiums by an astronomical $14,400 in 2026. Furthermore, a 60-year-old earning $40,000 would receive a tax credit under the AHCA of $4,000 compared to $6,750 under the ACA to purchase insurance.

In addition, the recent proposals in Congress would have eliminated Medicaid expansion (ACA allows states to increase eligibility for people under 65 who were at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty line) which could have left low-income older Americans without viable health care. Evidence demonstrates that Medicare eligible seniors with prior health insurance as older adults require less expensive health care than people who were uninsured before they enrolled in Medicare. Whether it’s the ACHA or Graham-Cassidy, had these bills become law, Medicare spending across the board (Part A, B, C and D), could have seen an unnecessary spike.

A study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, entitled “Use of Health Services by Previously Uninsured Medicare Beneficiaries” found that uninsured persons between the ages of 50 to 64, were more likely to experience worsening health and die younger compared to persons of the same age who were otherwise uninsured. Consequently, once the uninsured population became Medicare eligible they required more expensive health care. The study found that the costlier care resulted from 23.4 percent doctor visits and 37 percent hospitalizations. In conclusion, the study stated, “These findings support the hypothesis that previously uninsured adults used health services more intensively and required costlier care as Medicare beneficiaries than they would have if previously insured.”

To further the point, the United States Government Accountability Office published a similar study that examined the impact of having continuous health insurance prior to joining Medicare entitled, “Continuous Insurance before Enrollment Associated with Better Health and Lower Program Spending.” This report found that people with continuous health insurance coverage for about six years prior to being Medicare eligible were more likely to be healthier for their first six years on Medicare as compared to their insured counterparts. Financially during the first year on Medicare, people with prior continuous coverage had about $2,300, or 35 percent less in predicted spending than the previously uninsured population.

Overall, Medicare helps 57 million people in America gain access to health care, with half of its recipients having incomes of less than $24,150 a year. Recent health care proposals would have purposefully defunded Medicare and made health care less accessible for the majority of older Americans. ​While reasonable people can disagree on health care fixes to the ACA, I hope Congress does not champion policies that put Medicare’s long term financial future into question.

​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

Have you ever heard a person say, “I am more likely to see a UFO than receive my social security benefits?”

Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) during a Republican presidential debate last year stated, “Now there are more 18-year-olds who believe they have a better chance of seeing a UFO than a Social Security check."

Clearly there is a perception amongst some Americans that receiving Social Security benefits are anything but a sure thing. Given some individual’s bleak outlook for the Social Security program; do the program’s fiscal projections match people’s anxiety?

Recently the 2017 Social Security Trustees Report was released, which outlines the financial solvency of the Trust Funds (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI)) over a 75 year period. According to the Trustees report if Congress doesn’t take action, the trust funds will see a short fall in 2034, leaving enough funding for Social Security to pay about 77 percent of its obligations using only income tax revenue. Additionally, by 2092, the percentage of commitments Social Security will be able to meet would decrease slightly to 73 percent.

The financial projections for the Trustees Report provide concrete evidence for the long-term viability and success of Social Security. I think people of all political backgrounds can agree that a federal program that projects at worst to meet about 75 percent of its obligations until 2092 is not going broke! However, despite a promising future, Social Security projecting a 25 percent short fall for future commitments is still unacceptable. Consequently, what steps can Congress take to ensure that all retirees receive 100 percent of their earned benefits?

Politicians have proposed various policies to ensure the program can meet all of its obligations such as privatization, raising the age for eligibility and increasing the Social Security payroll tax cap. While all these ideas could potentially stave off a short fall, only increasing the cap on the payroll tax will guarantee seniors receive their earned benefits at the appropriate age. The other ideas will risk retirement income to stock market instability or force older Americans to work longer, which would be particularly unfair to seniors who work labor intensive jobs.

Social Security revenue is primarily derived from the Social Security payroll tax from workers and employers up to the annual limit ($127,000 in 2017). Therefore, every dollar someone earns over $127,000 in 2017 is not subject to tax. In 1977, the last time Congress adjusted the cap, the cap covered 90 percent of all wages. Unfortunately, between 1984 and 2015, the percentage of taxable earnings fell from 88.6 percent to 82.6 percent. Social Security could easily be more solvent by increasing the percentage of our country’s income subject to the tax. In February, the Social Security Administration (SSA) declared that taxing income above $250,000, accompanied by other modest changes could make the program solvent to 2078.

Millions of Americans rely on Social Security as their only source of income and the program every year helps keep fifteen million seniors out of poverty. While the achievements of Social Security cannot be disputed, more still needs to be done to safeguard the program’s continued success. Modest changes to the social security tax cap can ensure that every American believes that their earned benefits are a guarantee.

​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.