Tens of thousands of lower-income people of a certain age rely on federal help for food and housing, among other things. Experts say they might punch back if they lose that help in the federal budget.
What is clear is that, politically speaking, local older voters tend to punch above their weight. Though people older than 65 account for about 17% of the county’s population, they’ve accounted for closer to 25%, or more, of all votes cast in recent elections.
Older voters have the ability – and, according to Camp and others, the propensity – to respond to any perceived political slight by punching back.
The White House projects that taxpayers would save around $34 billion if the federal government ended or trimmed a variety of federal housing programs. That’s a huge number. But senior advocates say those cuts almost certainly would mean more homelessness, and that numerous economic studies have shown that homelessness is, among other things, far more expensive than housing assistance.
“The programs that they’re talking about cutting were set up for a reason. And even though there’s a lot of talk about how they’re wasteful or ineffective, when you look closely at what they do, you usually see something different. They work,” said Trinh Phan, director of state income security issues for Justice in Aging, a nonprofit that offers legal help to senior organizations.
“Cutting rent subsidies will result in more people on the streets. It’s simple,” she added.
“We’re already seeing a rise in senior homelessness. And that’s a very public issue; people see the homeless and it affects them,” Phan said. “And, beyond the morality of it, it’s much more expensive to try to help someone who is unhoused than it is to make sure they don’t become unhoused in the first place.
“That could wake a lot of people up.”
