EDITORIAL: Jamie Herrmann: Flipping the script on aging
May 29—Every May, the Area Agency on Aging District 7 (AAA7) joins the nation in the observance of Older Americans Month, a time to recognize older Americans' contributions, highlight aging trends, and reaffirm commitments to serving older adults in our communities.
The 2025 theme for Older Americans Month is "Flip the Script on Aging," which focuses on transforming how society perceives, talks about, and approaches aging. Older Americans enrich our communities with their strength, wisdom, and diverse life experiences.
In recognition of Older Americans Month, the AAA7 has met this month with County Commissioners in all ten of the counties in our service area. Each county signed a proclamation declaring May 2025 Older Americans Month and encouraged residents to join them in recognizing the value they bring to each of our communities.
Unfortunately, our time for celebration is over-shadowed by the concerns regarding potential federal policy changes and funding cuts that would impact services for our older adults. Currently, there is a draft Health and Human Services (HHS) budget that, if approved, would result in the drastic reduction or elimination of some Older Americans Act (OAA) programs that are provided through our Agency and local providers. Programs such as wellness classes, nutrition services, etc. It also poses a threat to our Ombudsman Program responsible for advocating and protecting the rights of older adults in long-term care settings.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a reconciliation bill that institutes significant cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It is now up to the Senate to protect these vital services and supports for older Ohioans. Medicaid is the largest payer of long-term services and supports and the largest provider of home and community-based services (HCBS). Cutting Medicaid HCBS will ultimately lead to more older adults going into nursing homes, which are the more expensive option for long-term care.
SNAP is a vital support for older adults across the state as a nutritious diet plays a significant role in promoting health, healing and well-being. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed changes and cuts to SNAP could force millions of people off the program, including many older adults who rely on the program to eat.
To be proactive, we have created a template that you can use to help craft a message that can be sent along to our federal legislators. Together, we can let our elected officials know that we value these programs and want to make sure they continue providing valuable services and supports for many years to come.
For the template letter that includes more information and details, in addition to contact information for Ohio Senators Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted, and Congressman David Taylor, visit our website at www.aaa7.org under the "Happening Now" section.
To find out more about AAA7 and all the programs we offer to help support individuals needing long-term care services and supports in their home and community, contact us at 1-800-582-7277 or email info@aaa7.org.
Jamie Herrmann is the executive director of Area Agency on Aging District 7.
You Might Like
Opinion
MJ Wixsom: Warm days bring out the ticks
News
Ashland woman killed in UTV accident
Obituaries
June and Paul Jenkins
News
A tradition of honor (WITH GALLERY)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump wants his ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill' to sail through the Senate. These five factions stand in the way
On Monday evening, the U.S. Senate returns from a week-long recess to take up President Donald Trump's proposed domestic spending bill, which he's dubbed the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' The House of Representatives barely passed the bill last month in the wee hours of May 22. It was a coup for House Speaker Mike Johnson. But passing it through the House was only halftime. And while House Republicans were just as divided as Senate Republicans, the upper chamber GOP has to navigate stricter and more arcane rules. Senate Republicans have only 53 votes, which is not enough to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Thus, they plan to use a process called budget reconciliation, wherein they can pass legislation with only 51 votes as long as it is tied to the budget. Trump has also said he understands the Senate will inevitably change the bill. 'I want the Senate and the senators to make the changes they want,' he told reporters. 'It will go back to the House and we'll see if we can get them. In some cases, the changes may be something I'd agree with, to be honest.' The bill also represents Senate Majority Leader John Thune's first major challenge. Thune inherited the mantle from his mentor Mitch McConnell after serving as the whip for Republicans since 2019. But to get this bill across the finish line, he will need to satisfy multiple factions and leaders in the Senate. Here are the five groups that Thune will need to navigate. The Fiscal Hawks The Senate does not have a formal group of conservatives who want to slash spending the way that the House does with the Freedom Caucus. But they still have a bevy of fiscal conservatives. Chief among them is Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who last month told The Independent that reductions in spending were 'fake cuts.' Other senators in this faction include Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who challenged Thune for the top job in the Senate last year, told Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk that he is a 'no' on the bill in its current form. To win them over, Thune will need to probably exact some kind of spending cuts. But that might infuriate the next group. The MAGA populists No part of the bill has received more attention than the changes to Medicaid. Specifically, the legislation would require able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, participate in community service or education for at least 80 hours a month. In a last-minute deal to appease conservatives, House Republican leaders moved up the work requirements to begin at the end of 2026 rather than in 2029. Republicans who hail from states that expanded Medicaid might also fret about this. Chief among these Republicans is Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who has sought to reorient the GOP to become the party of working-class voters and has adopted a more populist tone compared to other Republicans. Hawley has said he would oppose major changes to Medicaid because of how many people in his state depend on it and the Children's Health Insurance Program. If the Senate keeps the changes to Medicaid made in the House or goes even further on Medicaid, expect Hawley to stand up. The Moderates and the front-liners Republicans have a pretty favorable map in the coming midterms. With 53 seats, they only truly face risks in two swing state races: Thom Tillis' re-election campaign in North Carolina and Susan Collins' campaign in Michigan. Tillis for the most part has focused on renewing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the 2017 tax cuts that Trump signed in his first presidency. But Tillis also joined Sens. John Curtis of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, the most moderate Republican senator, on a letter calling to preserve renewable energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, former president Joe Biden's signature climate legislation. The House legislation phases out many of the credits and some conservatives, such as the aforementioned Lee and Scott, want a rollback in those credits. Historically, Republican moderates and swing-state incumbents have to eat the provisions conservatives insert into legislation. But if a handful of them break, there is a chance they might have leverage. The Senate Parliamentarian The most important person that Thune may have to convince is not even a senator, but rather a mostly anonymous rule keeper — the Senate parliamentarian. Consider the parliamentarian as the Senate's referee who polices the rules. The current parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, is seen by most as an impartial arbiter of the rules. MacDonough will be responsible for subjecting the bill to what is called the 'Byrd Bath,' the strict criteria for what can be included in budget reconciliation, named for the late majority leader Robert Byrd. Perhaps the biggest peril for Republicans will be if she rules that the revenue and spending parts of the bill are 'merely incidental' to the parts that do not relate directly to the budget. MacDonough infuriated progressive Democrats twice during Biden's presidency: once when she advised against allowing a minimum wage increase in the American Rescue Plan, Democrats' Covid relief legislation; and a second time when during the deliberations for Build Back Better when she advised against allowing immigration reform. Already, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats plan to challenge the provision in the bill to restrict the ability of courts to hold government officials in contempt. Also expect other provisions on immigration and the ban on using Medicaid dollars to pay for gender-affirming care to be challenged. Donald Trump Yes, the president could become a stumbling block to his own bill. Even if Thune satisfies all members of his conference and gets most of the bill through the so-called Byrd Bath, Trump's approval matters most. While the president has never cared much about the intricacies of policies, he responds to public perception and opinion. If he thinks the bill will cause backlash as modified in the Senate because of spending or Medicaid cuts, he might send Thune back to the drawing board. Also, if it does not go far enough on beefing up immigration enforcement, he could balk and send it back.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Young people are skeptical of the American Dream
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. There are some striking divides in a new CNN poll, but they aren't necessarily the partisan kind Americans have come to expect: The divides are more gray than red versus blue. The first has to do with the American Dream, which a growing number of Americans feel is out of reach. Most, 54%, still agreed with the idea that 'people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard,' in the new poll, conducted by SSRS. What's noteworthy is that when CNN asked the same question back in 2016, more than two-thirds of respondents, 67%, agreed with that optimistic idea. Looking at the new poll's results by age, younger Americans are less bullish that they can 'make it.' About half, 51%, of those under 45, felt that 'Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people,' compared with 41% of those 45 and older. There's likely some partisanship behind those numbers, since younger Americans tend to be more liberal, despite the inroads that President Donald Trump and Republicans have made with young people. But the age divide exists, to a more modest extent, even within the Democratic Party. More than two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents under 45 say that hard work and determination are no guarantee of success. A smaller portion, 62% of older Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents feel that way. Read the full report by CNN's Ariel Edwards-Levy. A second question in the poll asks whether the government should do more or whether it is trying to do too many things already. A majority, 58%, say the government should do more to solve the country's problems, up from just 51% when CNN asked the question nearly two years ago. More young people, 63% of those under 45, said they want more from the government, compared with 54% of those 45 and older. The government arguably does more for older people: It helps to provide health care in the form of Medicare and retirement benefits in the form of Social Security for a large portion of older Americans. At the same time, the ballooning national debt means those programs' future is on an unsustainable path for younger Americans. Asked about which party they feel represents their views on the economy, three-quarters of people over 45 picked either Democrats (32%) or Republicans (42%), leaving just about a quarter of older Americans who said neither party represented them on the economy. A larger portion of people under 45, 38%, said they did not feel represented by either party on the economy. Another CNN story published Monday might help explain some of the malaise felt by younger Americans. This is from CNN's report on the 'No hire, no fire' economy by Matt Egan: … Even as the overall labor market looks relatively healthy, economists say this is the worst market for new college graduates since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Recent grads are finding that it takes considerable time to get hired, leaving them unemployed and saddled with student debt for a frustratingly long time. For the first time since record-keeping on the topic began in 1980, the unemployment rate for recent graduates (those 22 to 27 years old with a bachelor's degree or higher) is consistently higher than the national unemployment rate, according to Oxford Economics. The unemployment rate for people between 20 and 24 is twice the national average, and there is evidence that companies are adjusting how they make entry-level hires as they adopt AI advancements. All of that could point to a distinct lack of optimism among younger Americans.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Donors' vs ‘takers': SALT battle stirs debate between blue and red states
President Trump's domestic agenda bill is spurring a debate over whether blue states are subsidizing red states. After a successful pressure campaign from blue-state Republicans, the House version of Trump's bill was amended to boost the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap to $40,000. The agreement was a major win for a handful of House Republicans from wealthier districts in blue states. The GOP lawmakers backing the larger cap argued their constituents tend to pay higher state and local taxes in large part due to high property values. Before Trump's 2017 tax bill, the constituents could write off their state and local taxes. That bill imposed a $10,000 ceiling, which the blue-state GOP lawmakers said unduly punished their area's homeowners, who suddenly had a massively larger tax bill. The SALT cap is controversial because it's a tax break that benefits wealthier Americans in more affluent coastal states. But those arguing that the higher ceiling is justified say their constituents already send in more to the federal government in taxes than they get out in public services. As a result, they argue their states are already effectively subsidizing state with lower property values that tend to get more in federal benefits than their constituents pay in taxes. This has spurred a larger debate over who is subsidizing who when it comes to red and blue states. Democrats and blue-state Republicans defend the SALT deduction and advocate for a higher cap because their states often pay more in taxes than they get back in services. They distinguish between 'donor states' and 'taker states' and argue that, as donors, they should be able to fully exempt their regional taxes from their federal tax bill. 'Most of these states … are high tax states that give more to the federal government than they get back in federal services. Most of the red states are taker states, states that get more from the federal government than they actually pay in taxes,' Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said during a markup of the tax portion of the GOP bill earlier this month. 'It's really not fair that we are being stuck with this cap on our state and local tax deduction because people are getting taxed on taxes that they've already paid,' he said. The argument is a common one among Democrats. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) made the point during an interview with television pundit Sean Hannity in 2023. 'We're subsidizing your states, Sean, because of your policies,' he said. Republicans in red states see things dramatically differently. They argue many residents of blue states are simply living in high-tax areas and shouldn't get a federal tax reduction for doing so. If they want lower taxes, vote to lower the local taxes or move. State tax experts say blue states are generally sending in more to the federal government than they are getting out in benefits because they have larger local economies and more higher-income taxpayers. The 'donor state' and 'taker state' distinction has been around for decades, though funding used to flow more from northern states to Southern states rather than from coastal states to interior states. Recent studies show a bit of a complicated picture, though in many cases it is blue states that are paying in more to the federal government than they are taking out. For example, Washington, Massachusetts and New Jersey all ran a deficit with the federal government in 2023, according to a 2025 New York comptroller study, meaning these states sent in more in taxes than they received in benefits. Other states with a substandard balance of payments include California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Utah and Illinois. Most of those states have repeatedly voted for Democratic candidates in recent presidential elections and have Democratic senators representing them in Congress. Utah is a notable exception. However, when it comes to states simply taking large amounts of benefits from the federal government, the report from the New York comptroller paints a more complicated picture. The top 10 taker states in 2023, the report found, included New Mexico, Virginia, Hawaii, Maryland and Maine, which repeatedly have backed Democrats in the presidential election. The list also included Alaska, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky and Alabama, five red states. New Mexico, Virginia, Alaska, Mississippi and West Virginia all receive more than $12,000 more per person from the federal government than they pay in taxes, according to the comptroller study. A separate report from the State University of New York found the states in 2022 with the most favorable balance of payments per capita were Virginia ($14,888), Kentucky ($14,507), Alaska ($14,031), New Mexico ($13,009), and Maryland ($11,617). Texas and Florida, the two GOP-leaning states with the largest economies, received moderately more per person from the federal government than they provided in taxes. There's no single government program or tax that's responsible for the net transfers from blue states to red states, but experts point to health care matching contributions, also known as FMAP, as a major driver. 'If you look at FMAP, the share usually for red states is much higher, meaning there is more federal support,' Lucy Dadayan, a principal research associate with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, told The Hill. 'Medicaid is the largest share of all the federal aid going to the states. That's one [way] that red states get substantially more funding from the federal government than the blue states get.' The GOP bill makes large cuts to public health care programs to partly offset some of its tax cuts, with millions of people set to lose access to public health care as a result of the legislation. There is no regional breakdown of where those people live from the Congressional Budget Office, but the distribution of FMAP allocations suggests they may be located in Republican-led states. While the bill still has to make it through the Senate, the higher $40,000 SALT cap would lower taxes on more affluent taxpayers by allowing them to deduct more local taxes from their federal returns. This could take a bite out of the net federal subsidies from Democratic to Republican states by amping a tax cut that is of particular advantage to Democratic states. It will also contribute substantially to the federal deficit. One estimate from the Tax Policy Center found that a $40,000 SALT cap without an income threshold would cost more than $600 billion through 2034. Getting rid of the SALT cap altogether would cost more than $1.2 trillion through the next nine years, the group found. All the maneuvering the House has done on SALT and the last-minute agreement Republicans struck to raise the cap to $40,000 could be for nothing. Republicans in the Senate don't have a SALT caucus that is threatening to break from the rest of their party in the same way that the House does. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill that the SALT cap wasn't really an issue for the Senate, even though he recognized that the House had to make a deal. Investors say they expect changes on the bill could come from Senate moderates. 'We will be watching Senate moderates and moves in the bond market, as these will likely drive last-minute adjustments. The true deadlines remain the August recess,' Larry Adam, chief investment officer of investment bank Raymond James, wrote in a note to investors. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
