Bush V. Kerry: Will Seniors Deliver the Knockout Punch?

Kerri Houston

In the 1700s, “gaffer” and “fogey” were terms of respect for older members of society. Gaffer referenced wisdom derived from “godfather,” and a fogey was an honored veteran.

In most nations, respect for older members of society is embedded in cultural mores and traditions. In America, this is not always the case as our robust economic society gives credit to those currently producing goods and services, but contributions of past workers are not always appreciated in the present.

However, the most common term for our older generation –”senior citizens” – aptly demonstrates that they remain a potent political force. Senior citizens are not just an age cohort; they are a societal movement with three important issues on their minds – financial self-sufficiency, health and their progeny.

In crafting plans that address the welfare of American seniors – present and future - the Bush administration has forged ahead with a number of cage-rattling proposals that address their important issues. These programs and reforms will loom large in the upcoming presidential campaign and may be a deciding factor in the outcome.

On average, seniors’ voting patterns tend to be mixed between Republicans and Democrats in both Congressional and Presidential races. Seniors voted for Al Gore in 2000, but in the 1980s, they weighed in for Ronald Reagan by much larger margins. The most significant factor in determining seniors’ voting patterns is age.

New Deal babies born before 1927 with worldviews shaped by Roosevelt’s big government policies tend to vote Democrat. Seniors born after 1927 were more attracted to Ronald Reagan’s limited government agenda. In this year’s election and as time progresses, there are a greater number of Reagan seniors than New Deal seniors.

John Kerry’s strategy to attract these voters is to scare them. George W. Bush’s approach is to strengthen them.

Bush’s two major tax cuts have provided seniors with a savings of over $1,000 per year. As the average amount that a senior spends out of pocket for prescription drugs is $900, one could argue that this tax savings doubles as a prescription drug benefit.

The President signed a cut in the taxation of dividend income resulting in annual savings of nearly $700 for some 10 million seniors with investments. These direct earnings and private pensions comprise over 40% of seniors’ income – on par with the 41% received from Social Security.

Congressional Republicans and the President constantly advocate for permanent repeal of the death tax, a levy opposed by 80 – 90% of Americans across all ethnic and economic classifications. Seniors don’t want to leave their assets to the government – they want to leave them to their children. Democrats voicing opposition to repeal regularly offend seniors who have investments, property, or a continued interest in a family business – as well as those who simply believe that taxation without respiration is morally egregious.

Reforms contained in the Medicare Modernization Act signed by President Bush in January 2004 are critical first steps in overhauling a system that is failing seniors as Medicare has been woefully unable to keep up with advances in technology and pharmaceuticals that replace older and more unpleasant treatments.

According to recent studies, the Medicare Discount Drug Card program started in June is already saving over 4 million seniors 30% to 90% on their prescription drug costs. Additionally, the annual $600 cash subsidy provides assistance to low-income seniors who need it the most.

Yet Democrats who opposed this program for political reasons are trying to separate seniors from better health and cheaper drugs by scaring them away from signing up for a program that is clearly working.

John Kerry received great applause from his fellow Democrats during his acceptance speech in Boston. But when he heatedly stated, “ I will not privatize Social Security!” a palpable silence fell over the hall. Ironically, even as Democrats use the personal ownership of retirement savings as their biggest scare tactic on senior voters, even they prefer ownership and growth of their retirement savings accounts.

With 10.1% of all seniors currently living in poverty, Social Security has contributed to post-retirement financial hardship by crowding out pension plans and personal savings while delivering egregiously low rates of return. Social Security has given America’s seniors a false security that has left many of them in dire financial straits.

Dependence on Social Security is profound, as 38% of beneficiaries receive 90% of their income from the system. Social Security brutalizes widows, who live longer than their spouses but have fewer working years and lower Social Security checks. With no ownership in the system, when their husbands die, the widow receives a paltry $255 from Uncle Sam and a note that she must now pay her household expenses with one Social Security check, not two.

President Bush has repeatedly stated that the system must be fixed based on the following criteria: no benefit cuts for current or near-term retirees, no payroll taxes increases, and reform for younger workers providing them with ownership and control. These fixes would keep current and near retirees safe, and ensure higher benefits for future retirees to avoid many of the economic woes today’s seniors face.

Future retirees could also bequeath their lifelong savings to chosen legatees. This argument in not lost on today’s seniors who share a “gaffer’s” love and concern for children and grandchildren.

The plan Republicans are rallying around with gusto was offered by Paul Ryan (R-WI) with support from John Sununu (R-NH) in the Senate. Their retirement savings reform plan allows younger workers to own their retirement savings with no benefit cuts to current retirees or tax increases to wage earners. This proposal would gradually eliminate Social Security insolvency, reduce poverty levels for seniors and lessen the country’s debt.

Treasured American author Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. once said, “To be 70 years young is sometimes far more cheerful and hopeful than to be 40 years old.”

Bush’s ownership society policies return the dignity of self-sufficiency to our nation’s seniors, improve their quality of life and acknowledge their continued importance to our political, family and societal fabric.

For our nation’s oldest youngsters, Holmes’ wise observation has never been truer than it is today.

###

Kerri Houston is Vice President of Policy for Frontiers of Freedom. She is a policy analyst and expert in media, marketing and external relations for the public policy community. Her areas of expertise include tax, social security reform, and healthcare. Prior to joining Frontiers of Freedom, Ms. Houston served as National Field Director for the American Conservative Union. She was also executive director of State Policy Network and director of external affairs for Dallas' Institute for Policy Innovation. A strong proponent of individual and economic liberty, Ms. Houston is a Brain Trust columnist for Investor's Business Daily, and her opeds have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Dallas Morning News, Forbes magazine, Intellectual Ammunition, and numerous other print, internet and institutional publications. She has appeared on Fox News and MSNBC, and was a frequent guest on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. Ms. Houston is a member of the National Paycheck Protection Working Group and an advisor to the Texas Conservative Coalition’s Health and Human Services Task Force. She serves on the Board of Directors for GOPUSA.com and the Board of Advisors for The Project for California’s Future. She was also nominated to serve on the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Well known for her dedication to presenting public policy in a way that will “pass the dinner table test,” Ms. Houston brings a sharp wit and a practical spin to her areas of expertise.

khouston@ff.org