Search This Blog

Showing posts with label 2016 Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016 Elections. Show all posts

Sunday, October 9, 2016

When Washington Doesn't ‘Get America


Why Washington DC bureaucrats don't get things right
Newswise, October 9, 2016--  Washington doesn’t think very highly of the American people, concludes a yearlong Johns Hopkins University study of 850 non-elected officials working in the nation’s capital….These Beltway insiders, who work in federal agencies, on Capitol Hill and in other Washington policy jobs, tend to think Americans are uninformed, know “very little” about key issues, and have opinions that can be ignored.

The findings by political scientists Jennifer Bachner and Benjamin Ginsberg, will appear in the book, What Washington Gets Wrong: The Unelected Officials Who Actually Run the Government and Their Misconceptions about the American People, which will be published by Penguin Random House on Oct. 4.

“This disdain for the public results from the wide gulf between the life experiences of ordinary Americans and the denizens of official Washington,” the authors say.

 “Official Washington is wealthier, whiter and better educated than ordinary citizens. It lives in its own inside-the-Beltway bubble, where Washingtonians converse with one another and rarely interact on an intellectual plane with Americans at large.”

In their 2013 survey, the authors found people who either work in government or directly with it not only have very little in common with other Americans, but have a disturbingly low opinion of them.

They found 73 percent of government officials think the public knows little or nothing about programs aimed at helping the poor, 71 percent think the public knows little or nothing about science and technology policy, and 61 percent think the public knows almost nothing about childcare.

In fact, when it comes to fundamental policy areas like social security, public schools, crime, defense and the environment, it was hard to find government officials who thought the public knew “a great deal.”
Assuming Americans know so little, government officials tend to use their own judgment rather than the people’s when making policy decisions, the authors conclude.

With issues of science and defense, more than half of officials think they should “always” or “mostly” heed their own opinions. With crime, welfare and the environment, at least 42 percent of officials felt the same way.

Government officials actually tended to believe their own views diverged more from those of ordinary Americans than they actually did.

For example, 76 percent of officials believe they disagree with average Americans on half of the policy areas surveyed, but only 12 percent of them really do. The data on “average Americans” is largely drawn from the 2012 American National Election Study.


“This sense of “false uniqueness” reflects a sense of cultural or intellectual superiority,” the authors say. “The officials tend to view the citizenry with a considerable amount of disdain.”

Previously released findings from the book showed:

--Ninety-one percent of those who work for federal agencies are white, versus 78 percent of the public.
--In 2012, federal workers compensation averaged $81,704, or 48 percent more than the private sector average of $54,995, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That puts federal workers in the top 10 percent of American earners.
--Sixty percent of those who work on the Hill are Democrats versus 35 percent of Americans at large.
--In the 2012 presidential election, 97 percent of congressional and White House staffers voted versus 80 percent of other Americans. Sixty-two percent of those Hill staffers believe election votes are counted fairly “very often” compared with 33 percent of other Americans.
--Washingtonians are reading the news at least five days a week compared with about three days a week for the rest of the country.

Bachner is director of the Master of Science in Government Analytics program at Johns Hopkins. She teaches courses in statistical analysis, survey research, public opinion, elections and American political behavior. Her research examines coalition building in Congress, government responsiveness and the growth of online education.

Ginsberg is the David Bernstein Professor of Political Science and chairman of the Johns Hopkins Center for Advanced Governmental Studies. His research interests include American politics, Jewish history, higher education policy, and the societal impact of war and violence. He is the author of 24 books, most recently The Worth of War.



Thursday, May 12, 2016

The Coming "Age Wave" That Presidential Candidates Need To Address…But Aren't


Issues Facing An Aging American in 2016 Elections
May 12, 2016 -- An age wave is coming that could either make or break America. Yet the issue has received little attention in the current presidential campaign.

When our Constitution was crafted, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was barely 36 years, and the median age was a mere 16. In this regard, we are living in truly uncharted territory and longevity is humanity's new frontier.

As the baby boomers turn 70 at the rate of 10,000 a day, America is becoming a "gerontocracy." Already, 42% of the entire federal budget is spent on Medicare and Social Security.

And according to the Congressional Budget Office, this will exceed 50% by 2030. In the 2012 election, older adults out-powered all other age groups with 72% of men and women 65+ voting, while only 45% of those 18-29 did.

This demographic transformation will create new social contribution and marketplace opportunities, as well as potentially devastating medical, fiscal, and intergenerational crises.

Are we prepared? No. Are the candidates addressing this age wave and offering innovative solutions? No. WHY NOT?

These are the questions being asked by Ken Dychtwald, PhD, author of 16 books on aging related issues and CEO of Age Wave. Based on his 40 years of research, dialogue, and analysis, Dr. Dychtwald believes there are five essential transpartisan issues that must be addressed if our newfound longevity is to be a triumph rather than a tragedy.

Issue #1: What is the new age of "old?"
Our economy is hinged to 19th century notions of longevity and old age. When Otto Von Bismarck picked 65 to be the marker of old age in the 1880s, the average life expectancy in his country was only 45. Similarly, when Social Security began, the average American could expect to live only 62 years, and there were 42 workers paying for each "aged" recipient. Today life expectancy is approaching 79, and due to decades of declining fertility, there are fewer than three workers to pay for each recipient. And we have to ask, is 65—or even 67—the right marker of old age in the 21st century? As our demography continues to tilt older, the economic impact of these numbers on working Americans will be massive. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is not an issue that only impacts "seniors." The designated age of "old" in the 21st century is a demographic/social/economic issue that will affect us all. Left unchanged, it will have a particularly brutal impact on the millennial generation.

Issue #2: The diseases of aging could be the financial and emotional sinkhole into which the 21st century falls.

As a result of modern medical advances and public health infrastructure, we've managed to prolong the lifespan, but we have done far too little to extend the healthspan—with pandemics of heart disease, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. In addition to being quite costly, our healthcare system is incompetent at preventing and treating the complex conditions of later life. For example, Alzheimer's (and related dementias) now afflicts one in two people over 85, and it has become the nation's scariest disease. Unless there is a breakthrough, its sufferers are anticipated to grow from 5+ million today to 15+ million, with its cumulative costs soaring to $20 trillion by 2050. But our scientific priorities are out of synch: for every dollar currently spent on Alzheimer's care, less than half a cent is being spent on innovative scientific research. Our doctors are also not aging-ready. We have more than 50,000 pediatricians, but fewer than 5,000 geriatricians. Only eight of the country's 145 academic medical centers have full geriatrics departments, and 97% of U.S. medical students don't take a single course in geriatrics.

Issue #3: Averting a new era of mass elder poverty
According to the Government Accounting Office, roughly half (52%) of all households near retirement (headed by someone age 55+) have NO retirement savings and about half (51%) of our population have no pensions beyond Social Security. We could be heading to a future in which tens of millions of impoverished aging boomers will place crushing burdens on the U.S. economy and on the generations forced to support them. On top of this, we are not fostering financial literacy or responsibility among the young. For example, 37 states require providing sex education to high school students by law, while only 17 states require financial education.

Issue #4: Ending ageism
In Colonial times, elders were respected and honored for their wisdom and experience. During the industrial era, all of that turned upside down. Now, in our youth-focused society, many people of all ages are gerontophobic—uncomfortable both with older adults and their own aging process. And many institutions—from urban planning, to technology, to employment hiring practices, to housing, to popular media (where advertisers will pay networks far more for a 30-year-old viewer than one who is 60) are both youth-centric and ageist. For example, our homes were not built for aging bodies: less than 2% of our housing stock is built to be safe and accessible for elders (and 1/3 of the elderly fall each year).

Issue #5: The new purpose of maturity
Today's retirees feel they are in the best time in their lives to give back. And they do: contributing both more dollars and volunteer time than any other age group—doing everything from teaching schoolchildren to read, to helping their peers recover from loss, to building homes for Habitat for Humanity. Going forward, medical science will increasingly prolong life. But political, religious, and community leaders have yet to create a compelling vision for the purpose of those additional years. For example, our 68 million retirees currently spend an average of 49 hours a week watching television. Ultimately, the problem may not be our growing legions of older adults, it may be our absence of imagination, creativity, and leadership regarding what to do with all of this maturity, experience, and longevity.

A letter is being sent to each major candidate asking them to articulate their views on these five critical issues.

A written copy of Dr. Dychtwald's views and a recording of his April 21 press briefing, including the specific questions on these issues that he believes the candidates must address – with fact sheets and related data and sources, can be accessed at www.agewave.com/candidates.

About Age Wave

Founded in 1986, Age Wave is a pioneer in the exploration of the impact of the longevity revolution. Under the leadership of Founder/CEO Ken Dychtwald, PhD, Age Wave advises businesses and non-profits worldwide on the opportunities and challenges of an aging population.