How Poorly Off Are the Elderly?

By WILLIAM A. HENRY III

A conference on their problems turns into a political rumble

The first two White House Conferences on Aging were gatherings of generally like-minded advocates, assembled at federal expense to lobby the Federal Government for more money for the elderly. In 1961 the conference helped build momentum for the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The 1971 session spurred Congress to a sharp increase in Social Security benefits. But this year, with the White House committed to reducing spending on social services, the delegates were far from like-minded. At times they were as fiery and unruly as college protesters in the '60s.

The conference started with shrill accusations that the Administration had "rigged" committee assignments to affirm President Reagan's views. Worried about the growing backlash against the White House, President Reagan made an unscheduled appearance to dispel doubts that he was "somehow an enemy of my own generation." The conclave ended Thursday with shouts of protest as 2,266 delegates were compelled to approve or reject a package of 600 often contradictory resolutions with a single yes or no vote.

On the biggest issue, Social Security, there was a succession of committee votes alternately favoring and opposing the use of general tax revenues to fund the system; both those conflicting positions were endorsed in the final mass vote on the 14 committee reports.

Amid the chaos both sides claimed victory. President Reagan declared he was "pleased." Yet such advocates of the elderly as Cyril Brickfield, 62, executive director of the American Association of Retired Persons, and Maggie Kuhn, 76, founder of the Gray Panthers, called the 60-page conference report "a liberal document." In fact, the conference did endorse, albeit loosely, nearly all of the "eight for the '80s" goals proposed by a consortium of 25 elderly groups. Among the aims: more access to full-time and part-time work; home delivery of services rather than use of nursing facilities; an eventual but undefined "national health care plan." On two pivotal issues, however, the conference adopted positions urged by Reagan: it did not entirely rule out benefit cuts for future recipients of Social Security, and it did not endorse immediate passage of national health insurance.

Perhaps the most significant debate took place apart from the conference, among statisticians and researchers. The Reagan Administration has reopened a question that elderly advocates had considered long settled: Just how needy are older Americans? In contrast to what the White House claims is a stereotypic view that the elderly are destitute, enfeebled, neglected and unfed, the Reaganauts have been promoting the image of the "wellderly." Most older Americans, the Reagan team says, live in houses they own, on adequate incomes, in good health and with sufficient companionship. That image appeals to the pride of the elderly and their desire for self-reliance; it also undercuts support for major new benefits.

The concept of the "wellderly" found an unlikely and perhaps uneasy ally on the eve of the conference: the National Council on the Aging, an elderly advocacy group, which commissioned a poll on elderly well-being from Louis Harris. His company sampled 3,437 adults, including 540 over the age of 65. Harris' conclusion: "On every single issue tested, the elderly are perceived as being in much more desperate shape than they actually are." Some 48% say they have more income than they need; 66% own their homes, and most have paid off the mortgage. Although fully 63% rely on Social Security as their biggest source of income, 88% have some savings, and they report less need than younger people to dip into savings to pay bills.

These statistics may reflect lower expectations among the elderly. In Harris' sample the median household income for all Americans was $20,000, while for the elderly it was only $8,600. Further, the Harris poll found that while elderly men had a median household income of $11,000, the median for women was $6,700, for blacks $5,000 and for Hispanics $5,600. Harris' poll especially pointed up the problems of women, who represent a disproportionate 78% of the unfortunate group with incomes below $5,000 a year.

The conference's most rousing episode was a march down a corridor of the Sheraton Washington Hotel led by Democratic Congressman Claude Pepper, 81, of Florida to the doors of the Economics Committee, which was considering recommendations for revising the Social Security system. While Pepper stepped aside to negotiate a compromise, hundred of supporters stayed to chant and sing We Shall Overcome. The compromise was as inconclusive as much of the rest of the conference: it opposed any reduction in current Social Security benefits, but failed to define whether a change in the complicated formulas would constitute a reduction; it opposed cutbacks for future recipients, but may have poked a loophole in the social safety net by asking only that Congress and the President "make every possible and fiscally reasonable effort" to maintain today's level of benefits.

The Social Security compromise indicated that the Administration may have underestimated the common-sense conservatism of the elderly, who gave 60% of their votes to Reagan. Efforts to manipulate the conference, some delegates insisted, ended up hurting the Administration's cause. Said Milton Tupper, 67, a retired Los Angeles businessman: "They could have played a tape from Reagan in which he said, 'I hear there have been some complaints. I have asked the secretary to let you vote on each resolution.' He would have had a chorus of yeses." But the elderly should be flattered by the White House's meddling. If nothing else, it proved that they are a political force to be reckoned with--and even feared. --By William A. Henry III. Reported by Ruth Calvin/Washington

With reporting by Ruth Calvin/Washington

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.