Local Seniors Speak Out in Debate Over Social Security, Medicare
May 14, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
For Seattle senior Susan Johnson, her 62nd birthday couldn’t come soon enough. The former customer service representative had been struggling to find a job for more than 2 years. After losing her home to foreclosure, she spent a short time sleeping in her car and had to rely on her local food bank to get by. But early last month, Susan finally became eligible to receive Social Security. “The monthly check of about $1500 is going to make all the difference in the world,” said Johnson. “It doesn’t mean I won’t continue to struggle to make ends meet, but I honestly don’t know what I’d do without it.”
Johnson isn’t alone in her sentiments about the importance of Social Security. A new state survey by AARP Washington shows nearly all registered, likely Washington voters (98%) believe Social Security is important to people’s financial security in retirement, and a similar number (97%) say the same about Medicare’s importance to people’s health in retirement. The May 2012 survey, “Politics as Usual,” was of registered, likely Washington voters age 18 and over. Surprisingly, the support held strong across all age groups, with just as much support among younger Washingtonians as older. Ninety-seven-percent of Washington voters age 18-49 said Social Security is important, while 99% of voters age 50-64 and 99% of voters age 65+ also said it’s important. Support for Medicare was just as robust (18-49 year olds: 98%; 50-64 year olds: 97%; and 65+ year olds 98%).
AARP released the survey on May 9 at the Mercer Island Community and Event Center as part of the Association’s “You’ve Earned a Say” effort, a national conversation about strengthening health and retirement security. Through You’ve Earned a Say, AARP is taking the debate about Medicare and Social Security out from behind closed doors in Washington D.C. and making sure that all Americans have a voice in the discussion about their future.
“Instead of talking about Medicare and Social Security as line items in the federal budget, Washington D.C. should be talking about how to strengthen health and retirement security and ensuring Americans have a voice in the debate,” said AARP State Director Doug Shadel. “Our members and older Americans have paid into Medicare and Social Security throughout their working lives, and they have earned a say in the future of these programs.”
While comments and opinions about the importance of Social Security and Medicare were positive amongst most attendees, they were far less complimentary about their lawmakers in Washington D.C. Those feelings were mirrored in AARP’s statewide survey showing more than three quarters (81%) of Washington voters agree that politicians in Washington D.C. are trying to make too many decisions behind closed doors regarding Social Security and Medicare. And more than 9 in 10 (91%) think that politicians need to spend more time listening to ordinary citizens like them.
“I’m tired of people talking about Social Security and Medicare as though they’re hand-outs,” said Johnson. “We’ve paid in to these programs for our whole lives, and it’s something we’ve earned and feel we should be able to count on. It’s time they quit playing politics with our lives, and find a way to strengthen these programs for today’s seniors and future generations,” she said. AARP’s survey showed Washington voters are on the same page as Johnson, with more than 8 in 10 respondents (86%), saying they think the two political parties are more interested in using Social Security and Medicare to attack each other than they are in finding real solutions to strengthen these programs for the future.
AARP also presented a section at the event about getting to the truth and facts behind political advertising. According to AARP’s survey, Washington voters are sick and tired of negative and misleading political ads, and most are misinformed or unaware of what’s behind the spin.
According to AARP’s survey, Washington voters are highly skeptical about the truthfulness in political ads. More than three quarters (79%) of Washington voters think it’s difficult to determine if information in political advertisements is accurate, and less than 1 in 10 (8%) think that most or all of political television ads they have seen gave objective, factual information about an issue or candidate.
“But even though voters have a healthy dose of skepticism about political ads, most mistakenly believe someone in government is watching out for them,” said Shadel. According to AARP’s survey, less than one-third (31%) of respondents know that it’s not a violation of federal law for candidates to use deceptive or misleading statements in political advertising. Also, few respondents (13%) understand that the contents of political advertising are not regulated by any government agency.
The majority of Washington voters also oppose the rules and regulations regarding Super PAC’s, while many are unaware of what the rules are in the first place. According to AARP’s survey, less than half of Washington voters (43%) know that private organizations do not have a fixed maximum amount they can contribute to Super PACs. When presented with the details about current laws, nearly three-quarters of respondents (73%) oppose allowing people who donate to Super PACs through private organizations to remain anonymous, and more than 7 in 10 (72%) oppose allowing private organizations to contribute an unlimited amount of money to Super PACs.
Washington voters are also tired of politics-as-usual and negative political ads. Over half of Washington voters (57%) say that all or most of the political TV ads they have seen involved negative attacks on a candidate and nearly a quarter (24%) say that some of the ads they have seen involved negative attacks. However, less than a quarter (21%) who have seen negative attack ads say these types ads are helpful when making a decision about a candidate or issue.
To help the public get to the facts behind the spin in political advertising, AARP urged the group to do some fact checking of political ads and also view ads with a more critical eye. According to the organization, many political ads are designed to appeal to your emotions rather than deliver useful facts and information.
To underscore the effectiveness of emotional appeals, AARP’s Shadel pointed to such classic ad examples as the “Daisy” television ad about nuclear war from the 1964 presidential campaign, and the “Bear in the Woods” television ad used by President Ronald Regan in 1984 to illustrate his tough stance on the Soviet Union. “Negative attack ads based on fear have a stronger impact and tend to stick in our memory,” said Shadel. “It’s something that’s hard-wired in to our evolutionary past. When something is scary, we respond with higher levels of attention and anxiety– and advertisers know that.”
Shadel also highlighted other tactics and showed examples of ads that take their opponents comments and positions out of context, or others that use misleading visuals or backdrops. But while the deck may be stacked against voters when it comes to dissecting political ads, Shadel provided a few tips to help voters get to the facts:
• Be aware of the use of emotional appeals in ads. If it’s scary, be wary.
• Watch political debates where you can hear both sides of the story directly from the candidates.
• Watch a variety of news sources, and be aware of any particular bias or slant that may be present in the coverage.
• Check it out! Subscribe to fact checking websites like FactCheck.org, Flakcheck.org and Politifact.com, or seek out fact checking resources in your local media outlets.
AARP has additional “You’ve Earned a Say” events planned in Spokane on June 7 and Olympia on June 26. More information is available at www.aarp.org/wa. More information about the “You’ve Earned a Say” effort is also available at www.earnedasay.org