Glenn Beck compared the Norwegian teenagers who were recently murdered in a horrific attack on Utoya Island to “Hitler Youth.” Really. His rationale was that the young people were at a political camp. He somehow finds providing a camp for teenagers that focuses on politics to be “disturbing.”
What I find to be disturbing is how few young people in our culture care or know about how the political system, which affects almost every aspect of their lives, operates.
I have observed an appalling lack of political knowledge among my college students. The majority of them are ignorant when it comes to the different platforms of the two major parties. They do not know about any important rulings of the Supreme Court. They have no idea how to register to vote. And they’ve no inkling how government policies impact everything from how much tuition they pay to the safety of their workplace. They also believe that they are powerless to change anything.
The only thing they seem to be aware of is the price of gas. Now, that gets them fired up -- briefly. It doesn’t occur to them that more and better public transportation would solve many of their woes (including their worries about DUI’s).
My students are not stupid. Nor are they uncaring. But if anyone ever bothered to talk to them about politics it was too complain about paying taxes and having to support “lazy” people on welfare. Nothing of the nuances of public policy has drifted down through the cable news blather.
A high school course in US Government is not enough. Most students sleep right through it. Our young people could use a camp to inform them about our political system -- not for brainwashing or propaganda but for the sole purpose of helping them understand our government, our economy, and the mechanics of change. But it’s pretty apparent why that wouldn’t be popular here. We might somehow get a system that was fairer and more inclusive if people knew how it worked. And people might not gullible enough to be swayed by the likes of Glenn Beck.
This blog is about the challenges faced by caregivers, educators, the young and the elderly, and others needing care and how policy impacts their lives.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Social Security is a Women's Issue
My mother worked from age 14 to age 86 as a professional musician. By the age of 86, she was simply unable to continue. She started taking social security as late as possible and still it was not enough for her to live on when she retired.
My mother did not receive a cost of living increase in her social security payments last year; and yet her rent went up $200 a month. Somehow we scraped up the additional money. She was fortunate enough to have three children who were able to help her make ends meet for the last seven years of her life. Not all women are so lucky.
According to the Social Security Administration, about 90 percent of all elderly women live solely on social security. In addition, women live longer than men and their social security payments are less; and few elderly women have private pensions. Another scary statistic: by 2030, one in four American women will be over the age of 65.
Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, was recently interviewed on the NPR show “Here and Now.” O’Neill said that “the best marker of whether a woman will live in poverty in her old age” is motherhood. I was shocked. “Being a mother is the one factor that correlates strongly with living in poverty in old age,” she said, adding that we don’t have policies in this country that support caregivers. O’Neill noted that caregiving is largely unpaid and largely done by women.
Cutting social security benefits directly impacts large numbers of women -- not just the women who receive social security but their caregivers as well, which creates a vicious cycle. Women who take care of elderly parents will now have to do more with less.
According to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, 25 percent of women who care for a sick or disabled family member rate their own health as fair or poor, and more than half of women caregivers have one or more chronic health conditions. I can attest that while taking care of my mother, I often neglected my health for lack of time, energy and money. The study also states, “Nearly one-third of all caregivers (31%) report a decrease in their family's savings because of caregiving responsibilities. Overall, two of five women caregivers devote more than 20 hours per week to caring for a sick or disabled family member.”
The bottom line is that you don’t earn social security for your work as a caregiver. Cutting social security may sound like a good way to cut the deficit, but ultimately it will create more problems for the elderly and for their families.
My mother did not receive a cost of living increase in her social security payments last year; and yet her rent went up $200 a month. Somehow we scraped up the additional money. She was fortunate enough to have three children who were able to help her make ends meet for the last seven years of her life. Not all women are so lucky.
According to the Social Security Administration, about 90 percent of all elderly women live solely on social security. In addition, women live longer than men and their social security payments are less; and few elderly women have private pensions. Another scary statistic: by 2030, one in four American women will be over the age of 65.
Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, was recently interviewed on the NPR show “Here and Now.” O’Neill said that “the best marker of whether a woman will live in poverty in her old age” is motherhood. I was shocked. “Being a mother is the one factor that correlates strongly with living in poverty in old age,” she said, adding that we don’t have policies in this country that support caregivers. O’Neill noted that caregiving is largely unpaid and largely done by women.
Cutting social security benefits directly impacts large numbers of women -- not just the women who receive social security but their caregivers as well, which creates a vicious cycle. Women who take care of elderly parents will now have to do more with less.
According to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, 25 percent of women who care for a sick or disabled family member rate their own health as fair or poor, and more than half of women caregivers have one or more chronic health conditions. I can attest that while taking care of my mother, I often neglected my health for lack of time, energy and money. The study also states, “Nearly one-third of all caregivers (31%) report a decrease in their family's savings because of caregiving responsibilities. Overall, two of five women caregivers devote more than 20 hours per week to caring for a sick or disabled family member.”
The bottom line is that you don’t earn social security for your work as a caregiver. Cutting social security may sound like a good way to cut the deficit, but ultimately it will create more problems for the elderly and for their families.