Meals On Wheels Presidents urges Congress not to adopt Obama's proposed funding

[Bluebear]

PRESS RELEASE by Enid Borden

If you are reading this while eating your breakfast, here is a hard fact to swallow: Six million seniors in America face the threat of hunger. That is one in nine.

Yes, in the richest nation on earth many seniors are struggling to survive without proper nutrition. Now add to that the senior tsunami beginning to cast its long shadow across all our communities. It is a dramatically rising tide of senior citizens, and most Americans are completely unaware that it is upon us. That includes many of our leaders in Washington. Unless we begin to act decisively and aggressively, senior hunger in America will only worsen and we will pay in lives as well as dollars.

Just take a look at your neighbors and you will see the face of senior hunger in America. It is your fifth-grade teacher, retired firefighters and the clerk you used to see at the local grocery store. Now, they are too old and frail to leave their homes, and their numbers are growing. The elderly accounted for almost 40 million members of our population in 2009 and the government predicts that the number will climb to more than 72 million by 2030. Ten thousand baby boomers turn 65 years old every single day in America.

President Barack Obama recently released his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. Instead of asking for increased funding of senior nutrition programs, his administration recommends a flat repeat of current levels — approximately $819 million. If funding were keeping up with inflation and the growth in the elderly population, based on the funding levels of two decades ago (fiscal year 1992) that number should now be approximately $1.7 billion. This huge discrepancy highlights a significant and disturbing shift in national priorities. We are witnessing an eroding commitment to seniors who are desperately in need of life-sustaining necessities.

Meals On Wheels programs work tirelessly to serve more than 1 million meals each day in America. The need, though, is so much greater. The majority of those programs depend on federal funding through the Older Americans Act as their core funding.

We, as a nation, are failing those who depend on us. Surely there is nothing more fundamental to life and health than food. But every day, more and more seniors are going hungry. Today's seniors are just as precious to us as those of 20 years ago. Our financial commitment to their nutritional health should reflect that.

The Meals On Wheels Association of America and our member programs throughout the U.S. know as well as anyone the economic difficulties that the country and the administration and Congress are facing. Yet, we cannot ignore the facts. As our nation's financial commitment toward feeding seniors has decreased, hunger risks have skyrocketed. And this, in and of itself, represents an incalculable cost to the nation.

We can only hope that the Congress will carefully consider the impact their decisions concerning Senior Nutrition Programs have on America's seniors in every community — and every congressional district — in this great land. This is a difficult fiscal environment, and we know that challenges are great. But we must remind policymakers and the nation as a whole that there are millions of others who need us and whom we are still failing to reach. Feeding hungry seniors who cannot provide meals for themselves is not a discretionary activity. It is a moral imperative. Our message is as simple as that.

Enid Borden is president and chief executive officer of the Meals On Wheels Association of America, whose mission is to end senior hunger by 2020; www.mowaa.org.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110301/OPINION03/103010347/-1/NEWS01/Budget-cuts-threaten-Meals-Wheels-help-seniors

[PBS Poll-435]

1. At least they knows how a budget is made

And I am sure that MoW will not suffer a change in funding when the dust settles.

Meals on Wheels is a cause that is very close to my heart.

[Bluebear]

5. See post 3, MOW is just being mawkish.

[PA Democrat]

2. So far the only people being asked to make "shared sacrifices" are those

those who have the least to share.

:-(

[Bluebear]

7. indeed

[frazzled]

3. Again, more detail needed

As usual, Obama increased funding for the OAA in his 2010 and 2011 (current) budgets. George Bush, by contrast, had cut funding by 10% in 2009:

On February 4, 2008, the President submitted his FY2009 budget request, which
would provide $1.731 billion for OAA programs, a 10% decrease from the FY2008
funding level of $1.924 billion.

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging16.pdf



Here, then, is a summary of the 2010 funding and 2011 budget requests. Please note that in addition to the 13% increase over 2009, the American Recovery and reinvestment Act (stimulus) provided an additional $100 million for nutrional programs):

The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), signed into law December 16,
2009, provides $2.328 billion for OAA programs in FY2010.
The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) provided $2.052 billion for OAA
programs for FY2009. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-
5) provided $220.0 million in additional FY2009 funding ($100.0 million for nutrition programs
and $120.0 million for the Title V, Community Service Employment for Older Americans
Program, or CSEOA). Total FY2009 OAA funding was $2.272 billion.
The FY2010 funding level for OAA programs is a 13% increase over the funding provided by the
FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, and a 2% increase over total FY2009 funding (including
both the Omnibus and ARRA). CSEOA received the bulk of this increased funding. Congress
appropriated $825.4 million to CSEOA in FY2010, compared with $691.9 million in FY2009
funding ($571.9 million from the FY2009 Omnibus, and $120.0 million from ARRA).
The President’s FY2011 Budget proposes $2.209 billion for OAA programs, 5% less than the
FY2010 level.

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging18.pdf

To hold it flat in the proposed 2012 budget is of course not what we want, but it also is not a drastic cut. Almost all programs are being held flat, and some are being eliminated. We have to be very careful not to generalize or make mawkish stories out of these things. You should be asking as well why Meals on Wheels pays $436,939 to The Borden Group for management services for its CEO and 2 employees. http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/elderly/meals-on-wheels-association-of-america-in-alexandria-va-3038

[Bluebear]

4. So Meals on Wheels needs to be questioned. Not Washington.

meals on wheels is just being mawkish and emotional.

/ignore poster at long last.

[frazzled]

6. Clearly you read neither PDF of budget details

You couldn't have done it in 10 seconds. It took me 20 minutes just to skim.

Stop cherry-picking your arguments. (I've volunteered for Meals on Wheels by the way, have you?)

[Honeycombe8]

8. I am thinking that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure everyone in the country understands....

how BROKE we are. We have to borrow that money, with interest. We don't have it. Any of it.

Keeping expenses the same as last year doesn't seem egregious, for this year only.

BUT....we should ALSO see a corresponding tax INCREASE for the wealthy. No, not to 90% like some suggest. But enough to make up for this program. And enough to make up for other programs being cut.

It should be a shared sacrifice.

I am middle class and work. I'm getting older. I've taken an income hit the last two years, and my property taxes went up both years. These are rough times for everyone but the very wealthy.

Charities and churches can make up for the lack of increased spending, I suppose. But they're hurting, too, with decreased donations.

Bad things happen in bad economies. I hope that churches and charities will step up their efforts for Meals on Wheels. It's a wonderful program.

[Bluebear]

9. 'I hope that churches and charities will step up' - sounds Republican

Sorry, it just does. Faith-based this and that, our opposition wants these charities to pick up where we as a society should be stepping up. I certainly agree with your point on shared sacrifice.

But if we have billions in our tax coffers to bail out corporations, we must have the money to feed the elderly.

[Honeycombe8]

10. It's what I hope. Can't help it. I donate to charities. I am not Republican.

That's how I know that donations are down, because those charities have sent out e-mails saying how much donations are down.

I assume that MOW gets private donations, in addition to government funding. That's an assumption, though.

The coffers are empty, is what I keep hearing. Unless they're (gasp!) lying. But my understanding is that no...we don't have $$$ in the coffers. We have to borrow everything for all of our budget that exceeds the estimated revenue that WILL be coming in. That's why I say we have to control expenses AND raise taxes, both. Don't forget, we just EXTENDED tax CUTS for the very wealthy, while cutting back on programs for the poor. Hardly a shared sacrifice.

About bailing out corporations....that was last year and the year before. And it wasn't to "help" them. It was to save thousands, or more, jobs of Americans, and to keep the economy from going into a depression. And the MOW program really WOULD'VE had a significant cut in funding, if that had happened. If not funding cut out entirely.

[leftstreet]

11. "We" are not broke. Rich people are holding OUR money n/t

[Honeycombe8]

12. True enough. But "we" don't have it. "We" have to borrow it.

That's because Obama extended the tax cuts for the wealthy. I understand why, but again, the facts are the facts.

It's not a cut for the WOM program. It's teh same $$$. Maybe they'll get a raise next year.