Surname Racial Bias? Winners and Losers in 2012 Election

The first color a voter sees in studying the ballot might be the red or blue of the Republican or Democratic parties. But gender–and race–can be a significant factor in the power of choice and the ultimate composition of Congress.
Last month, 78 U.S. House contests pitted a white candidate against a person of color; 47 white lawmakers won, or 60 percent. (In 10 additional races, both candidates were minorities.)
“People tend to look at partisanship first,” explained Matt Baretto, a University of Washington political-science professor, “but there is additional evidence that … people do bring their racial bias to the voting process.”
Baretto researched (pdf)  voting bias in Washington state, where an appointed Latino judge ran to retain his Supreme Court seat. His opponent campaigned lightly, yet won in 30 of the 38 counties where racial tensions were high.  (The Seattle Times covered the outcome, and previously Baretto found evidence of “racially polarized voting” in more than 40 Los Angeles County elections since the mid-1990s; similarly, 2010 research conducted in Texas showed a propensity for Hispanic voters to back “Juan Martinez” over “John Morgan.”)
In the coming year, more and more ethnic-sounding surnames will appear on ballots, which is only one factor that partly defines candidates beyond party and gender. Below are visual representations of winners and losers in November races involving minority candidates, with red signifying Republicans, blue Democrats, and green independents.
See our full coverage of all minority candidates, with photos and winning margins, from the November election. Also learn more about our incoming lawmakers by reading their profiles.
This first visual representation is of the 10 minority winners of open seats, further evidence that the GOP fielded few successful minority candidates.

Here is a mashup of the names of minority winners.

A collection of surnames of the losers in contests when one candidate was white and his or her opponent was a person of color.


Districts and gerrymandering have much to do with the success of a candidate, but some districts had hotly contested races of minority candidates;
Puerto Rican immigrant Jose Serrano easily retained his District 15 seat, representing New Yorkers in upper Manhattan and parts of Queens. He beat Frank Della Valle, 97 percent to 3 percent, in the widest margin among minority candidates.
Conversely, in another race where one candidate was a minority, Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy defeated incumbent Allen West, R-Fla., by the narrowest margin--a mere 1,907 votes--in ousting the black House member in District 18, which encompasses parts of Miami-Dade and Monroe counties.
Here you can see the surnames of the winners and their parties.



And finally, take a look at an alphabetized list of winners by party; the names in italics are the minority candidates.
Barton beat Sanders 58-39
Osborne beat Bass 86-14
Beatty beat Long 68-27
Becerra beat Smith 85-15
Bentivollo beat Taj 57-44
Beutler beat Haugen 60-40
Blackburn beat Amouzouvik 71-24
Brooks beat Holley 65-35
Burgess beat Sanchez 68-29
Campbell beat Kang 59-41
Capps beatMaldonado55-45
Capuano beat Romano 84-16
Castor beatOtero 70-30
Chu beat Orswell 63-37
Clarke beat Cavanagh 87-12
Coble beat Foriest 61-39
Cole beat Bebo 61-39
Cuellar beat Hayward 68-30
DeLauro beatWinsley 75-25
Coble beat Foriest 61-39
Denham beat Hernandez 54-46
Duncan beat Doyle 67-33
Eshoo beat Chapman 70-30
Farenthold beat Harrison 57-39
Flores beat Easton 80-20
Forbes beatWard 57-43
Gerlach beat Trivedi 57-43
Gohmert beat McKellar 72-27
Gosar beat Robinson 67-28
Green beat Mueller 78-20
Grisham beat Arnold-Jones 59-41
Heck beat Oceguera 50-43
Hinojosa beat Brueggemann 61-37
Horsford beat Tarkanian 50-42
Huizenga beat German 61-34
Jeffries beat Bellone 90-9
Joyce beat Blanchard 54-39
Jackson Lee beat Seibert 75-23
Lujan beat Bryd 63-37
Lungren beat Bera 51-49
Matheson beatLove 49-48
McCaul beat Cadien 61-36
 McClintock beat Uppal 61-39
McCollum beatHernandez 62-32
McNerney beat Gil 55-45
Meng beat Halloran 68-31
Miller beat Fuller 69-31
Moore beat Sebring 72-25
Mullin beat Wallace 57-38
Murphy beat West 50-50
Nadler beat Chan 81-19
Napolitano beat Miller 65-35
O'Rourke beat Carrasco 66-33
Olson beat Rogers 64-32
Payne beat Kelemen 87-11
Pearce beat Ernard 59-41
Pompeo beat Tillman 62-31
Reed beat Shinagawa 52-48
Rice beat Tinubu 55-45
Rogers beat Harris 64-36
Royce beat Chen 59-41
Ruiz beat Bono Mack 52-48
Ryan beat Agana 72-28
Sanchez beat Hayden 62-38
Scalise beat Mendoza 67-21
Scott beat Rose 62-35
Serrano beat Della Valle 97-3
Sewell beat Chamberlain 76-24
Southerland beat Lawson 53-47
Takano beat Tavaglione 58-42
Terry beat Ewing 51-49
Thompson beat Dumas 63-37
Tiberi beat Reese 64-36
Vargas beat Crimmins 70-30
Velazquez beat Murray 94-12
Webster beat Demings 52-48
Yoho beat Gillot 65-32

Read More..

Fixing the GOP: Party Like It's 1949

Americans by a 15-point margin in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the Republican Party needs less conservative policies that are more focused on middle- and lower-income Americans, rather than better leaders to sell its existing positions.
And 63 years ago, Americans by an 11-point margin said precisely the same thing.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.
Mark it up to the swinging pendulum of American politics: Six decades after Republican presidential nominee Thomas Dewey's unexpected loss to incumbent Democrat Harry S. Truman, the GOP is back in the same doghouse.
The question last was asked in 1949, months after Truman's victory in what's widely considered to be the greatest upset in presidential election history. The GOP, at that point, had lost five presidential races in a row, leading Gallup to ask:
"One group holds that the Republican Party is too conservative - that it needs a program concerned more directly with the welfare of the people, particularly those in the lower- and middle-income levels. The other group says that the policies of the Republican party are good - but the party needs a better leader to explain and win support for these policies."
In 1949, respondents, asked which view best fit their own, took the first option by 41-30 percent, with an additional 12 percent volunteering that both applied equally.
Fast forward to 2012. Defeated last month by an incumbent Democrat, the Republican Party has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. After hitting a 20-year high in 2003, allegiance to the GOP has dropped and shows no sign of recovery.
This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, repeated the 1949 Gallup question. The result: Fifty-three percent of Americans say the Republicans need to work on their policies. Thirty-eight percent see it, instead, as a leadership problem.
THEN/NOW - There are other parallels between 2012 and 1948. Mitt Romney came across as a stiff candidate, lacking the common touch - much the same commentary that described Dewey. Truman directed his fire at the "do-nothing" 80th Congress; Barack Obama, while stressing it less, benefitted from comparisons to the deeply unpopular 112th Congress.
And the 1948 economy was recovering after the recession of 1946-7; in the run-up to the 2012 vote the economy was recovering as well, with newly revised figures showing a 3.1 percent gain in GDP in the third quarter.
Finally, there was the sense in the 2012 election that Romney, one of the wealthiest men ever to seek the presidency, would, if elected, pursue policies that favored the well-off - a view expressed in the results of this survey, as it was about the Republican Party in 1949.
It should be noted that both parties have had their share of soul-searching: The Democrats also lost five of six presidential elections in recent times, from 1968 to 1988.
GROUPS - There are differences, of course, among groups. It's noteworthy that even among conservatives, 30 percent say the GOP is too conservative and insufficiently focused on lower- and middle-income Americans, as do 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants, a core Republican group, and nearly a quarter of Republicans themselves.
Those numbers rise sharply among other groups, for instance, to 53 percent of independents and 60 percent of moderates, peaking at 79 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of liberals. There was, notably, much less partisan polarization on this question in 1949.
Other differences largely follow partisan and ideological patterns. While 49 percent of whites say the Republican Party needs less conservative policies and a greater focus on middle- and lower-income Americans, that jumps to 66 percent among nonwhites, a growing share of the electorate. It's also much higher in the Northeast than in the South or Midwest, and higher among younger and the most highly educated Americans.
There's less of a difference, perhaps surprisingly, by income levels. Among people earning less than $50,000 a year, 55 percent say the GOP needs greater focus on lower- and middle-income Americans. But among $100,000-plus earners, essentially as many, 53 percent, say the same.
METHODOLOGY - This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Dec. 13-16, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 31-24-38 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

Read More..

Obama nominating Kerry for secretary of state

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday will nominate Sen. John Kerry as his next secretary of state, a senior administration official said, making the first move in an overhaul of his national security team heading into a second term.
If confirmed, Kerry would take the helm at the State Department from outgoing Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has long stated her intention to leave early next year. Kerry, a longtime Massachusetts senator, is expected to be easily approved for the Cabinet post by his Capitol Hill colleagues.
That would open up the Senate seat Kerry has held for nearly three decades. Recently defeated Republican Sen. Scott Brown might contest it.
Obama will announce Kerry's nomination from the White House Friday afternoon, said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the president's decision before the announcement. Clinton was not expected to attend. The secretary fell and suffered a concussion last week, State Department officials said, and hasn't made public appearances since.
Word about Kerry's nomination — Washington's latest worst-kept secret — came at a somber and unusual time, with both the president and Kerry attending a memorial service for Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. At the same time, leaders of the nation's divided government were in utter limbo about how to head off the "fiscal cliff" looming Jan. 1.
Kerry's nomination could bring to a close what has become for the White House a contentious and distracting effort to find a new secretary of state.
Kerry was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004, losing a close election to incumbent George W. Bush. He's a decorated Vietnam veteran who was critical of the war when he returned to the U.S., even testifying in front of the Senate committee he eventually chaired.
Kerry's only other rival for the job, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans for her initial accounting of the deadly September attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Obama vigorously defended Rice, a close friend and longtime adviser, but GOP senators dug in, threatening to hold up her nomination if the president tapped her for the post.
Rice withdrew her name from consideration last week, making Kerry all but certain to become the nominee. People familiar with the White House's decision-making said support within the administration was moving toward Kerry even before Rice pulled out.
The Cabinet nomination of Kerry, 69, is the first Obama has made since winning a second term, and the first piece in an extensive shuffle of his national security team. The president is also expected to nominate a new defense secretary soon to take over for retiring Leon Panetta and a new director of the Central Intelligence Agency to replace former spy chief David Petreaus, who resigned last month after admitting to an affair with his biographer.
The White House had hoped to introduce Obama's national security team in a package announcement. But those plans were scrapped as the fiscal cliff negotiations consumed the administration and questions arose about the front-runner for the Pentagon post, former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Hagel has been dogged by questions about his support for Israel and where he stands on gay rights, with critics calling on him to repudiate a comment in 1998 that a former ambassadorial nominee was "openly, aggressively gay."
As the nation's top diplomat, Kerry will be tasked with not only executing the president's foreign policy objectives, but also shaping Obama's approach. The senator offered some insight into his world view on Thursday during a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing he chaired on the deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Kerry called on Congress to put enough money into America's foreign policy objectives and said doing so is an investment "in our long-term security and more often than not it saves far more expensive expenditures in dollars and lives for the conflicts that we failed to see or avoid."
And he emphasized the importance of U.S. diplomats being able to work freely in places like Benghazi, despite its dangers.
"There will always be a tension between the diplomatic imperative to get 'outside the wire' and the security standards that require our diplomats to work behind high walls," he said. "Our challenge is to strike a balance between the necessity of the mission, available resources and tolerance for risk."
Kerry, the son of a diplomat, has long sought the nation's top diplomatic post. Obama considered him for the job after the 2008 election before picking Clinton, his defeated rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, in a surprise move.
Since then, Obama has dispatched Kerry around the world on his behalf numerous times, particularly to tamp down diplomatic disputes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was also part of Obama's debate preparations team during the 2012 election, playing Republican challenger Mitt Romney in mock debates.
Kerry also won praise from Obama aides for his sharp national security-focused speech at the Democratic National Convention in August. He told delegates: "Ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off now than he was four years ago."
Before nominating Kerry, the White House consulted with congressional Democrats about the fate of the Senate seat he has held for five terms. Democrats have sought to assure the White House that the party has strong potential candidates in the state.
Kerry has pushed the White House's national security agenda in the Senate with mixed results. He ensured ratification of a nuclear arms reduction treaty in 2010 and most recently failed to persuade Republicans to back a U.N. pact on the rights of the disabled.
The senator was also outspoken in pushing for a 2011 no-fly zone over Libya as Moammar Gadhafi's forces attacked rebels and citizens.

Read More..

Obama nominates Kerry for secretary of state

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday nominated Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, one of Washington's most respected voices on foreign policy, as his next secretary of state.
The move is the first in an expected overhaul of Obama's national security team heading into his second term.
As the nation's top diplomat, Kerry will not only be tasked with executing the president's foreign policy objectives, but will also have a hand in shaping them. The longtime lawmaker has been in lockstep with Obama on issues like nuclear non-proliferation, but ahead of the White House in advocating aggressive policies in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere that the president later embraced.
"He is not going to need a lot of on-the-job training," Obama said, standing alongside Kerry in a Roosevelt Room ceremony. "Few individuals know as many presidents and prime ministers or grasp our foreign policies as firmly as John Kerry."
He is expected to win confirmation easily in the Senate, where he has served since 1985, the last six years as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Kerry would take the helm at the State Department from Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has long planned to leave the administration early next year. Clinton is recovering from a concussion sustained in a fall and did not attend the White House event.
In a statement, Clinton said, "John Kerry has been tested — in war, in government, and in diplomacy. Time and again, he has proven his mettle."
Obama settled on Kerry for the job even though it could cause a political problem for Democrats in Massachusetts. Kerry's move to State would open the Senate seat he has held for five terms, giving Republicans an opportunity to take advantage. Recently defeated GOP Sen. Scott Brown would be his party's clear favorite in a special election.
Kerry would join a national security team in flux, with Obama expected to choose a new defense secretary and director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the coming weeks.
The 69-year-old Kerry already has deep relationships with many world leaders, formed both during his Senate travels and as an unofficial envoy for Obama. The president has called upon Kerry in particular to diffuse diplomatic disputes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, two countries that will be at the forefront of Obama's foreign policy agenda early in his second term.
At times, Kerry has been more forward-leaning than Obama on foreign policy issues. He was an early advocate of an international "no-fly zone" over Libya in 2011 and among the first U.S. lawmakers to call for Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak to leave power as pro-democracy protests grew. Obama later backed both positions.
Kerry would take over at a State Department grappling with the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans during a September attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Kerry, during a hearing on the attacks Thursday, hinted at how he would manage U.S. diplomatic personnel working in unstable regions.
"There will always be a tension between the diplomatic imperative to get 'outside the wire' and the security standards that require our diplomats to work behind high walls," he said. "Our challenge is to strike a balance between the necessity of the mission, available resources and tolerance for risk."
His only other rival for the job, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans for her initial accounting of the consulate attack. Obama vigorously defended Rice, a close friend and longtime adviser, but GOP senators dug in, threatening to hold up her nomination if the president tapped her for the post.
Rice withdrew her name from consideration last week, making Kerry all but certain to become the nominee. People familiar with the White House's decision-making said support within the administration was moving toward Kerry even before Rice pulled out.
The son of a diplomat, Kerry was first elected to the Senate in 1984. He is also a decorated Vietnam veteran who was critical of the war effort when he returned to the U.S. He ran for president in 2004, losing a close race to incumbent Republican President George W. Bush.
Obama and Kerry have developed close ties in recent years. It was Kerry, during his 2004 presidential run, who tapped Obama as the party's convention keynote speaker, a role that thrust the little-known Illinois politician into national prominence.
Kerry served on Obama's debate preparation team during the 2012 election, playing Republican challenger Mitt Romney in mock debates.
"Nothing brings two people closer together than two weeks of debate prep," Obama joked on Friday. "John, I'm looking forward to working with you rather than debating you."
Kerry is Obama's first Cabinet appointee following the November election. The president is also mulling replacements for retiring Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former CIA director David Petraeus, who resigned last month after admitting to an affair with his biographer.
Former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is a front-runner for the Pentagon post, but has been dogged by questions about his support for Israel and where he stands on gay rights, with critics calling on him to repudiate a comment in 1998 that a former ambassadorial nominee was "openly, aggressively gay."
Hagel apologized for that comment Friday.
Former Pentagon official Michele Flournoy and current Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter are also under consideration to replace Panetta. Obama is also considering promoting acting CIA Director Michael Morell or naming White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan as the nation's spy chief.

Read More..

Son says Romney was reluctant to run for president again: report

 Republican Mitt Romney's family had to convince him to make a second bid for the presidency because he was reluctant to run again after failing to secure his party's nomination in 2008, Romney's son told the Boston Globe on Sunday.
In an article that examined what went wrong with Romney's losing 2012 presidential campaign, Tagg Romney said his father Mitt said he had no intention of running again after he did not become the Republican presidential nominee in 2008.
Arizona Senator John McCain secured the Republican nomination that year and lost to Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election.
In order to overcome his father's reluctance, Tagg Romney told the Globe he and his mother Ann worked to change his mind.
"He wanted to be president less than anyone I've met in my life," Tagg Romney told the paper. "If he could have found someone else to take his place ... he would have been ecstatic to step aside."
Despite predictions that the 2012 election would be close, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and businessman, fell well short of the 270 electoral votes needed to defeat President Obama.
In November, Obama won re-election with 332 electoral votes and won most of the battleground states, including Ohio and Florida.

Read More..

Access to Money-Saving Benefits for Those 60 and Older

It's no secret many Americans are facing tough economic times and perhaps no segment more so than those aged 60 and older who are living on reduced or fixed incomes. The National Council on Aging and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging wants to help connect those individuals with services to help reduce the costs for prescriptions, utilities, food and health care.
Aid Funds Available in the Billions of Dollars
A news release provided by the NCOA and n4a reveals there are assistance funds of more than $20 billion available to the millions of baby boomers and their seniors who qualify for assistance to reduce or eliminate the cost of necessities such as heat, electricity and basic phone service, plus items and services related to health. Brandy Bauer, spokeswoman for the NCOA, told Reuters that $6.8 billion in benefits remains unclaimed by Medicare recipients who qualify for Medicare Part D Extra Help but have not ever filed for this benefit.
Ready Access to Benefits Programs for Seniors
The National Council on Aging and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging have combined their efforts to bring potential benefit recipients and benefit programs together in the You Gave, Now Save program. The intent of the program, as described by Reuters, is to aid the income-eligible of the 57 million Americans who are 60 years old and older, to learn about what benefits are available and provide the information needed to make application. The program provides information for a variety of benefit programs ranging from food assistance to transportation resources to heating and cooling assistance.
Other Resources for Seniors and Their Families
The You Gave, You Save program is provided in addition to the Eldercare Locator program that puts people in touch with resources in their communities and helps long-distance family members learn what is available in their loved one's community. Another program is the Benefits CheckUp program, a program that touts itself as aiding more than 3 million people accessing benefits worth more than $11 billion in the 10 years it has been in existence.
It can be hoped that by getting the information to the people who need it, they will be able to improve their quality of life by being able to afford food and prescription medication. No more having to make choices between the two.
Smack dab in the middle of the baby boomer generation, L.L. Woodard is a proud resident of "The Red Man" state. With what he hopes is an everyman's view of life's concerns both in his state and throughout the nation, Woodard presents facts and opinions based on common-sense solutions.

Read More..

Healthy Hollywood: Get Movin' Monday - A Toning Must For 50-Plus Women!

Who says everything goes south after 50? Just look at the rock-solid bodies of Madonna, Christie Brinkley, and Sharon Stone and you know mature women can be and are hotter than ever.
The celebrity magnet, Physique 57, (a favorite toning regimen of Kelly Ripa & Sofia Vergara) has put together a new class/workout for women over 50. "Our 'Fit for Life' classes are small group training sessions (limited to 10 participants) that we developed to meet the specific needs of women fifty and over. These one-hour classes are done twice a week over a four-week period, combine low impact strength training exercises, light cardio, and stretches that are designed to create strong, lean, supple, muscles leaving participants feeling more energized, confident, and youthful," Physique 57 co-founder, Tanya Becker.
Once the ladies finish the four-week session, they'll be up to speed and ready to join the other classes. It's important that older women are extra careful and do the exercises with the proper form since they are more prone to injuries, says Tanya, "Exercises should be modified appropriately, however, you still want to challenge your muscles otherwise you won't achieve your desired results. Physique 57's exercises are non-jarring on the joints (no jumping or pounding), which is also very important to avoid any injuries while still getting a great workout."
Tanya helped create the groundbreaking workout that combines interval training with toning exercises. For now, Physique 57 studios are only in New York and LA, but the training center just released a book, "The Physique 57 Solution: Lose Up To 10 Inches Fast" and there are workout DVDs, so women everyone can learn this celebrity-endorsed secret to a long and lean body.
Physique 57 shares with Healthy Hollywood 4 good reasons to exercise - especially as you age!
1. As we age, our metabolic rate slows down which can lead to extra body fat.
The more lean muscle you have, the more calories you'll burn all day long. Also, the less weight you have to carry on your body, the less stress there will be on your joints- not to mention how fabulous you'll look and feel!
2. Decrease your risk of osteoporosis and loss of bone density.
Keeping your muscles toned and strong will keep your bones strong. You'll be able to stand taller and exude confidence and grace.
3. Reduce your risk of injuries.
Whether you enjoy playing golf, tennis, or just want to stay active for many years, you want a youthful supple body to enjoy life.
4. Keep a good attitude.

Read More..

Should Seniors Live Alone or With Family?

Put Grandma in the garage? Yes. But a garage transformed into a well-appointed studio apartment with skylights and a patio for morning coffee.
Home remodeling for those who can afford it is one answer to a growing issue: How do you take care of family members in their late-retirement and twilight years? And then, a tougher question: When a home solution won't work, what assisted-living or nursing home options are available?
[See The Best Places to Retire in 2012.]
Growth of multigenerational households (mostly grandparents, parents, and minor children, but also other extended-family relationships) accelerated during the economic downturn. Some families shared quarters because the unemployment rate (a 30-year high) forced some out-of-work adult children to move back home. Sometimes it was the senior generation that needed a housing solution because they were no longer able to physically or financially go it alone.
The rate of this change is worth noting. In 2008, 6.2 million intergenerational households resided in the United States. That's 5.3 percent of all households. That number jumped to 7.1 million households, or 6.1 percent, by 2010. The two-year increase marked a faster rate of growth than the previous eight years combined, according to AARP's Public Policy Institute.
Even if the economy improves, it's a trend that looks to stick as families address graying baby boomers who may be facing an underfunded retirement, according to aging and financial professionals.
In the best and worst of times, the benefit of companionship and shared household duties, such as childcare, can't be dismissed. For some families, living together is not a solution to a problem but an exercise in bonding. There are also different cultural interpretations of the social value of multigenerational households. But for many families, finances are certainly a factor in their decision to merge under one roof.
Kevin Young, a certified financial planner with Young Wealth Management in Davis, Calif., sees an increasing number of "sandwich generation" clients in his tax practice. "They're taking care of aging parents and children at the same time, sometimes working multiple jobs to accomplish that," he says.
[See How to Avoid Being a Financial Burden on Your Children.]
Young says some boomers and their parents are still playing retirement savings catch-up as corporate America (and the public sector too, in some cases) shifts from defined benefits such as pensions to market-reliant 401(k)s and other individual retirement accounts (IRAs). Others just dropped the ball and didn't save enough.
Options. George Yedinak, editor and publisher of trade newsletter and blog Senior Housing News, sees an industry boom coming to meet the needs of multigenerational and senior housing. This includes concepts such as Greenhouse Project (modest stand-alone homes that include high levels of healthcare), senior villages, co-housing (unrelated seniors sharing space to reduce costs), in-law apartments, and other communal living solutions.
Yedinak notes that regulation of these housing models isn't currently as comprehensive as regulation nursing homes and other traditional care facilities. Regulation catch-up could bring a mixed impact--more scrutiny of care but also reduced incentive for industry growth.
As for home modifications, those are on the rise, too. "Those living in single-family homes will invest capital in their homes as more parents move in with their adult children. Using home office spaces, basements, attics and other existing solutions will make way for more formal renovations including the 'grannie apartment' as either an add-on or standalone," he blogs. "Unlike additions for bathrooms or kitchens, the resale value of 'grannie' renovation should be discounted greatly. Others may opt for pre-fab cottages or PODs as solutions that can be moved, stored, or re-sold when a senior needs to move to a more comprehensive care community."
The longevity conundrum. Healthcare presents a mixed picture for boomers; active lifestyles and treatment developments are helping stave off some disease, but longer living also raises the odds of multiple serious conditions in advanced years and the need for body maintenance, such as joint replacement.
Some households are able to accommodate parents with physical issues and the care industry is responding with more flexibility, often traveling to see patients. But eventually, no matter how welcoming younger generations are to opening their homes to the seniors, they may just not be able to handle the level of care needed.
The home versus care-facility debate welcomes a whole new round of cost concerns. According to Genworth Financial's 2011 Cost of Care Survey, while the cost to receive care in an assisted living facility or nursing home increased over the past year, the cost to receive care in the home, Americans' preferred long-term care setting, remained unchanged. Nationally, the median annual cost of long-term care in an assisted living facility is $39,135, an increase of 2.4 percent from 2010. The comparable cost for a private nursing home room rose 3.4 percent, to $77,745. At $18 per hour for homemaker services and $19 an hour for home-health aide services, the median hourly cost to receive care in the home remained flat over the past 12 months.
[See Should You Buy Long-Term Care Insurance?]
Aging consultancy Age Wave says some older Americans cling too much to the notion of independence in their own home and don't fully weigh the costs and benefits of retirement facilities.
Based on a study, the group offers a list of five myth-busters that may help families make these tough decisions:
-- My current home will be the best place to live in retirement. Many retirees believe remaining in their house gives them the most freedom and independence. But the reality is that by staying at home, they spend twice as much time doing housework and shopping as someone in a retirement center.
-- My current home is the best option to lead an active life and stay connected. Among those over 80, nearly half report suffering from loneliness--twice the rate of younger adults. Depression, alcohol abuse, and obesity can follow.
-- Home is less expensive. Among homeowners older than 65, 84 percent have paid off the mortgage. Still, a house is expensive. Taxes, utilities, upkeep, and insurance really add up.
-- It would be easy to get any care I might need at home. This may be true. But home-health care can further isolate anyone unable to get out. It is also expensive and can add to burdens on extended family.
-- Retirement centers are filled with people who are sick and dying. This may be the most off-putting myth. Today's centers are not where old people go to die. This is partly because most centers require new residents to be in good health and be able to live independently when entering the community.
Let's talk. Families are challenged to communicate their needs and desires for a housing solution. Cultural differences certainly determine the "acceptance" of multiple generations in a single household, but for the most part, the concept has moved in and out of trend in the United States. Needless to say, it's a touchy subject.
In a Metlife Mature Market Institute online survey of 2,123 Americans ages 21 to 65, conducted from June 29 to July 20, 2011, nearly half--46 percent across generations--believe children have a responsibility to provide financial support to their own parents or in-laws if they experience financial difficulty later in life. For many, this means allowing a parent to live with them if he or she is not healthy enough to live alone without caregiving (58 percent overall call this a strong or absolute responsibility), or allowing a parent to live with them if he or she is having financial trouble (50 percent). At the same time, however, many parents say they would not accept financial assistance from their children in old age.
The sad truth is that they may not have much choice. Better to discuss these issues now, when all the stakeholders can play a role in determining what "home" will look like in the future.

Read More..

The Baby Boomer Number Game

There are 75 million baby boomers who are on the verge of retirement. For the next twenty years, an average of 10,000 people each day will reach age 65, which has historically been the retirement phase of life.
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people age 65 to 84 in the U.S. grew by 3.3 million. While 13 percent of Americans are currently age 65 or older, that proportion will jump to 18 percent by 2030. The current 40 million senior citizens will balloon to 89 million by 2050.
These numbers and their impact are awe-inspiring and a bit frightening. Baby boomers entering retirement age will dramatically change today's business and lifestyle landscape. Baby boomers may stay in the workforce longer than their parents did, both because they need the money and they're not ready to leave behind fulfilling careers. And when they finally do retire, their need for health care and assisted living could permanently alter what retirement living arrangements look like for generations to come.
Work. Americans didn't always aim to retire early. Back in 1880, 78 percent of men over age 64 were still in the workforce. In 1934, the official retirement age of 65 was introduced. And by 1990, only 30 percent of men over 64 remained in the workforce. Now the retirement age is increasing again. In today's era of economic uncertainty, many would-be retirees will need to keep working to make ends meet and be considered fortunate if they can find or hold on to jobs.
Delaying retirement will certainly improve the finances of individual baby boomers, but could also lead to intergenerational conflict. Older employees who stay on the job longer than expected could be perceived as standing in the way of younger workers who are in search of their chance to contribute to society and make a living. And senior citizens who take up positions far beneath their experience levels could compete with students and recent graduates looking for a first job.
As more seniors stay active in or re-enter the workforce, older workers will increasingly report to younger supervisors, which can also create tension if both parties don't learn to effectively communicate with one another. Without sensitivity on both sides and a willingness to work together, conflict is likely and the welfare of the company could be jeopardized.
Living arrangements. Once they leave the workforce behind, aging baby boomers will face decisions regarding their living arrangements that will impact family and friends. In the ideal situation, baby boomers will remain able to cope with the responsibilities of home ownership, take care of themselves, and live safely where they are. But they are unlikely to remain healthy enough and sufficiently independent to go it alone indefinitely.
As they continue to age, a growing percentage of baby boomers will reach the point where they cannot completely fend for themselves. At that time, moving in with family may be an option. But challenges are bound to arise when family members must adjust their lifestyle to incorporate the quirks and habits of new residents. Parents may face scrutiny in how they raise their children, with unwanted input from the grandparents. And the physical requirements involved in caring for seniors can tax the patience and finances of the rest of the family.
When boomers require more attention than can be effectively provided by family members, nursing homes and extended care facilities will need to be considered. For families already challenged due to the economy and demands of raising a family, this can be brutal. Assisted living facilities that provide hands-on personal care for those who cannot live alone, but do not require the full-time coverage provided by a nursing home, cost an average of $3,261 per month, according to a Genworth Financial survey. Nursing homes with semi-private rooms are $5,790 per month, while those with private rooms ring in at $6,390 monthly.
Baby boomers changed the world in their youth and as working adults. Their impact continues at a relentless pace and will likely change our notions about retirement as millions move into retirement age.

Read More..

How health care law affects lives of 7 Americans

 A father lost his job at a medical device company that is facing a new tax. A young woman got back on her parents' insurance and was able to get surgery for an injury that could have hobbled her. A part-time sales woman stopped putting off a colonoscopy and cancer screenings and saved nearly $3,000 because health plans now must pay for preventive care without co-pays. A business owner received a tax rebate for providing health coverage to her employees.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, The Associated Press spoke with a variety of people to hear their experiences so far with the landmark legislation, whose major provisions don't take effect until 2014. Reporters asked: How has the health care law affected your life?
Here are snapshots of seven Americans:
___
Name: Michael Esch
Home: Warwick, N.Y.
Age: 48
Occupation: Former middle manager for medical device company, now working as a hospital purchasing agent.
Insurance coverage: Paying out of his own pocket for COBRA insurance through his former company.
Esch, a father of three, lost his job in November in a layoff his employer said resulted from President Barack Obama's health care law. Medical device maker Stryker Corp. announced in November it intended to lay off 1,000 workers worldwide to save money ahead of a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices that starts in 2013.
The tax on medical devices is meant to help pay for expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans. The Obama administration argues device companies will gain in the long run as more patients become eligible to receive their products because they have insurance.
Esch was a middle manager who had worked for Stryker for six years. He helped develop a product known as the Triathlon Knee. Since the layoff, he's taken a salary cut to work as a hospital purchasing agent. He's still looking for a job with another medical device company.
He blames the medical device tax for the loss of his job, but he's grateful for the provision in the health care law that will allow his oldest child, now a college sophomore, to stay on his health insurance to age 26.
"We tend to forget that for every great idea there is a ripple effect through other sectors of a business," Esch said.
Economists say most companies should be able to pass on the bulk of the tax to customers, but the industry says it will squeeze profits and chill investment, hiring and innovation.
___
Name: Glenn Nishimura
Home: Little Rock, Ark.
Age: 62
Occupation: Consultant to nonprofit groups.
Insurance coverage: Uninsured since COBRA coverage from a previous job expired in May of 2009.
Nishimura has been uninsured for nearly three years. He lost his health coverage after he left a full-time position with benefits in 2007, thinking he could land another good job. The recession destroyed that plan.
He's been denied coverage because of high blood pressure and high blood-sugar levels. A provision in the national health care law gave his state $46 million to insure people like him who've been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
But Nishimura said he can't afford the coverage. It would cost him about $6,300 a year in premiums with a $1,000 deductible, meaning he would pay the first $1,000 out of his own pocket before coverage kicks in.
He worries about suffering injuries in a car accident or falling ill before he's eligible for Medicare at age 65.
"I don't like feeling vulnerable like this," Nishimura said. "I'm completely vulnerable to some catastrophic problem."
Nationally, about 50,000 people with pre-existing conditions have signed up for the coverage available through the health care law, fewer than expected. The government has offered new options to encourage more to enroll. In another two years, he may be eligible for subsidies under the law for insurance.
___
Name: Samantha Ames
Home: Washington, D.C.
Age: 25
Occupation: Law student
Insurance coverage: Got back on parents' insurance, thanks to the health care law.
As a teenager, Ames was prone to ankle injuries playing catcher on baseball and softball teams. Last April, she tripped over her mini bulldog and badly injured her left ankle. Ultimately she needed surgery that cost her insurer $30,000.
But she considers herself lucky.
Only a few months before her accident, Ames had been able to get back on her parents' insurance, thanks to a provision of the health care law that lets young adults keep that coverage until they turn 26. Nationally an estimated 2.5 million young people have gotten insurance as a result.
Ames says it's unclear if the student health insurance she had been relying on previously would have covered her surgery. In any case, the copayments would have been steep. She would have had to postpone the operation, risking another — potentially crippling — injury.
"The fact that I was able to get on their plan is the reason I can walk today," said Ames. "Very rarely have I had something political affect me this personally."
___
Name: Sharon Whalen
Home: Springfield, Ill.
Age: 59
Occupation: Publisher of a weekly alternative newspaper
Insurance coverage: Small group plan.
As a co-owner of the Illinois Times, a weekly newspaper, Whalen wants to keep her small staff healthy. So she and her business partner provide them with health insurance and pay half the cost of premiums for their 10 employees.
Keeping that employee benefit is getting more and more expensive. The company saw a spike in premium costs after one employee's child had chronic health problems.
With costs climbing, the company switched to a managed care plan with higher copays for some services in 2009. Whalen's company also contributes less than it once did to cover the premiums of employees' family members.
The health care law brought some relief: a tax credit for small businesses that provide health coverage. The Illinois Times qualified and received a $2,700 tax credit last year.
"We see ourselves putting that money right back into the company," Whalen said.
Whalen heard about the tax credit from a health care advocacy group, not from her accountant.
"I had to practically beg them to look at this," Whalen said. "They weren't familiar with it."
The Obama administration has proposed expanding the number of businesses eligible for the credit, and simplifying the paperwork.
___
Name: Melissa Pearson
Home: Prineville, Ore.
Age: 53
Occupation: Retail sales, part time.
Insurance coverage: High-deductible plan purchased on individual market.
A few years ago, Pearson's doctor ordered her to have a routine colonoscopy. It's one of several colon cancer screening methods highly recommended for adults ages 50 to 75.
Pearson kept putting it off, in part because of the cost. Her high-deductible health insurance plan requires her to pay the first $5,600 out of her pocket each year. She knew the colonoscopy would be expensive and figured she'd be paying.
Then she learned that a provision in the health care law requires health plans to cover all costs for preventive care including colon cancer screening — with no out-of-pocket costs to the patient.
"That's what made me make the appointment," she said. She also scheduled a mammogram and cervical cancer screening, which also are covered preventive services under the law. In all, she saved nearly $3,000 in out-of-pocket costs last year because of the Affordable Care Act.
"I said to my sister, 'Thank you Obamacare," Pearson said.
The Obama administration says the Affordable Care Act provided about 54 million Americans with at least one new free preventive service last year through their private health insurance plans.
But Pearson is worried that covering preventive services will mean her insurance premiums and her taxes will go up. "It's being paid for by somebody," she reasoned. She recently talked with a student from Norway who told her about the tax levels in that country. "I'm fearful our world will turn into that."
___
Name: David Zoltan
Home: Chicago
Age: 34
Occupation: Field marketing coordinator for a public relations firm.
Insurance coverage: Federally funded health plan for people with pre-existing conditions.
Zoltan lost a job and his health insurance during the recession. His diabetes sent him to the emergency room three times when he ran out of insulin during the two years he was uninsured.
In 2010, he was one of the first to sign up in Illinois for a new health insurance program for people with pre-existing conditions. The Affordable Care Act set aside $196 million for the state of Illinois to start the program.
Zoltan now pays about $1,848 a year for that coverage. The plan has a $2,000 deductible, meaning Zoltan also pays that amount out of pocket before the coverage starts.
Zoltan has found work, but his new job doesn't include health benefits, so he'll stay on the federally funded health plan.
"As a diabetic, I never again want to be without health insurance," Zoltan said. "Anything is better than not having coverage at all."
He is watching the Supreme Court as it considers the law. The requirement that Americans buy health insurance is under constitutional scrutiny. Zoltan believes the individual mandate is needed to spread the risk among the well and the sick, and keep insurance affordable.
___
Name: Carol McKenna
Home: Pembroke Pines, Fla.
Age: 70
Occupation: Retired.
Insurance coverage: Medicare Advantage plan.
McKenna and her husband Morty have noticed that Medicare's "doughnut hole" is shrinking. The coverage gap in Medicare's prescription drug program — dubbed the "doughnut hole" — caught Morty in December last year. But once there, he received a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and other discounts on generic drugs thanks to Obama's health care law.
Last year, he received a $250 rebate check provided by the new law for people in the doughnut hole. Under the health care law, the gap will be gradually phased out by 2020.
Warnings about possible cuts to Medicare Advantage plans caused by the health care law haven't come true, Carol McKenna said. Their health plan still includes extra benefits such as fitness center membership.
She said she's grown weary of the political debate over the health care law.
"I've been following it somewhat. Then it got so convoluted and out of control during the elections that I stopped paying attention," McKenna said. "I don't want to hear it anymore. All they're doing is sniping at each other."
___
Alonso-Zaldivar reported from Washington.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ This is part of a weeklong package of stories previewing the Supreme Court's consideration of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law

Read More..

Smoking in pregnancy tied to lower reading scores

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Babies exposed to their mother's cigarette smoke in the womb later perform more poorly on reading comprehension tests, according to a new study.

"It's not a little difference - it's a big difference in accuracy and comprehension at a critical time when children are being assessed, and are getting a sense of what it means to be successful," lead author Dr. Jeffrey Gruen of Yale University told Reuters Health.

In the study, researchers found that children born to mothers who smoked more than one pack per day struggled on tests specifically designed to measure how accurately a child reads aloud and if she understands what she read.

On average, children exposed to high levels of nicotine in utero -- defined as the minimum amount in one pack of cigarettes per day -- scored 21 percent lower in these areas than classmates born to non-smoking mothers. The difference remained even when researchers took other factors -- such as if parents read books to their children, worked in lower-paying jobs or were married -- into account.

Put another way, among students who share similar backgrounds and education, a child of a smoking mother will on average be ranked seven places lower in a class of 31 in reading accuracy and comprehension ability, said co-author Jan Frijters of Brock University in Ontario, Canada.

Previous studies have found smoking during pregnancy is linked to lower IQ scores and academic achievement, and more behavioral disorders. The authors found no reports so far that zeroed in on specific reading tasks like accuracy and comprehension in a large population.

The team, which published their results in The Journal of Pediatrics, pulled data from more than 5,000 children involved in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPC) study that began in the early 1990s in the UK. Only data from children with IQ scores of 76 and higher were used. An IQ score of 70 and below can be the sign of a mental disability.

UK researchers collected questionnaires from mothers before and after giving birth. This helps make the self-reported data more trustworthy, explained Sam Oh of the University of California, San Francisco, who wasn't involved with the work. If mothers knew their child's reading scores beforehand, they might subconsciously report more or less smoking.

"To me, this study suggests that the effects attributed to in utero smoking can in fact be attributed to the intrauterine environment, and not due to environmental differences that the children grow up in," Oh told Reuters Health by email.

Large observational studies like this one call attention to patterns, but do not prove a direct cause-effect relationship between cigarette smoking and low reading scores.

Despite public health initiatives to discourage smoking, as many as one in six pregnant American women still light up, according to national surveys by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

"That is a lot of children," Dr. Tomáš Paus of the University of Toronto told Reuters Health.

Paus added that the study tied the effects of low test scores to nicotine in cigarettes, which also produce other harmful chemicals and carbon dioxide. Either way, smoking while pregnant seems to put a baby at risk for negative health outcomes.

Read More..

Antibiotics in pregnancy tied to asthma in kids

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Children whose mothers took antibiotics while they were pregnant were slightly more likely than other kids to develop asthma in a new Danish study.

The results don't prove that antibiotics caused the higher asthma risk, but they support a current theory that the body's own "friendly" bacteria have a role in whether a child develops asthma, and antibiotics can disrupt those beneficial bugs.

"We speculate that mothers' use of antibiotics changes the balance of natural bacteria, which is transmitted to the newborn, and that such unbalanced bacteria in early life impact on the immune maturation in the newborn," said Dr. Hans Bisgaard, one of the authors of the study and a professor at the University of Copenhagen.

Those effects on the immune system could lead to asthma later on, although it's still not clear how, said Anita Kozyrskyj, a professor at the University of Alberta who also studies the antibiotics-asthma link but wasn't involved in the new study.

Previous research has linked antibiotics taken during infancy to a higher risk of asthma, although some researchers have disputed those findings (see Reuters Health stories of May 17, 2011 and February 3, 2011).

To look for effects starting at an even earlier point in a baby's development, Bisgaard and his colleagues gathered information from a Danish national birth database of more than 30,000 children born between 1997 and 2003 and followed for five years.

They found that about 7,300 of the children, or nearly one quarter, were exposed to antibiotics while their mothers were pregnant. Among them, just over three percent (238 kids) were hospitalized for asthma by age five.

In comparison, about 2.5 percent, or 581 of some 23,000 kids whose mothers didn't take antibiotics were hospitalized for asthma.

After taking into account other asthma risk factors, Bisgaard's team calculated that the children who had been exposed to antibiotics were 17 percent more likely to be hospitalized for asthma.

Similarly, these children were also 18 percent more likely to have been given a prescription for an asthma medication than kids whose mothers did not take antibiotics when they were pregnant, according to findings published in The Journal of Pediatrics.

In an email to Reuters Health, Bisgaard said he expected to see a higher risk of asthma "because the mother is a prime source of early bacterial colonization of the child, and antibiotics may (have) disturbed her normal bacterial flora."

Bisgaard's team also looked at a smaller group of 411 kids who were at higher risk for asthma because their mothers had the condition and found these children were twice as likely as their peers to develop asthma too if their mothers took antibiotics during the third trimester of pregnancy.

Kozyrskyj, who is research chair of the Women and Children's Health Research Institute, said it's also possible that something other than the antibiotics are to blame for the findings in both groups of children - such as the illness that caused the mothers to take antibiotics.

"This study, it doesn't tell us whether it's the antibiotic use or whether it's the infection. That's one thing we can't decipher," she told Reuters Health.

The results don't suggest that women should avoid taking antibiotics to try to reduce their kids' risk of asthma, Kozyrskyj emphasized.

Some infections can be quite dangerous to a fetus, and "there are very good indications for these antibiotics," she added.

Bisgaard agreed that women should be treated, "but we see 1/3 of pregnant women in our region receiving treatments (often for urinary tract infections), which may reflect an uncritical use," he wrote in an email.

Bisgaard said his group is also studying the types of bacteria in pregnant mothers and newborn children to get a better understanding of their role in asthma.

Kozyrskyj said Bisgaard's study suggests that the development of asthma might start before birth, something researchers hadn't studied very closely.

Read More..