This you will not see at the Capital Press Corp.

By Gema Hernández

Many years ago one of my first jobs out of college was to write for a television program called ¿Qué Pasa, USA? This was the first bilingual program in the country that captured the lives and challenges of a recently arrived Cuban family as they try to adjust to live in the United States. Of all of the jobs I ever had that was the best.

The situation I am about ready to describe is not fictional but it will never be shown in the Capital Press Corps political skits in Tallahassee. It captures the drama and the comedy that is really taken place at the Department of Elder Affairs since January 6 when Governor Bush fired Terry F. White for allegedly sexually harassing at least three workers. Perhaps my attempt to write a reality show would inspire a reporter to explore the truth behind each scene

Scene one opens up with unidentified individuals placing thousands of official documents in a huge shredder. The individuals in question are government employees and they are aware that if caught destroying official documents they could be fired. They are not worried, the “boss” has given the OK and they know this is a new era, an era where you do not create public documents by never printing them. Instead, you keep those documents in an eternal loop in your computer and if and when documents happen to exist from the previous administration or secretary you simply destroy them. This way, you will get the credit for the accomplishments. Documents pointing to malfeasance should be the first to go. The scene ends after several file cabinets are shown completely empty as several employees leave the building late at night

Scene two: The Inspector General is sitting at his desk reading a spy novel. On top of his desk there is a big sign that reads: See no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil and keep your job”. Suddenly, an employee enters his office to let him know that the Department is not in compliance with Medicaid regulations and other Federal programs, but the Inspector General is not really interested in this story. He wants to finish his novel, so he tells the worker to come back tomorrow. Minutes later we see the Inspector General entering Secretary Blue’s office to tell him about the latest potential threat to the empire. After fixing his hair, Secretary Blue tells the Inspector get rid of that old fart. The scene ends when the Inspector General meets with Ms. Taylor to prepare the termination papers for the old fart.

Scene Three starts with Ms. Taylor talking to her friends in the APPEGE office. Her relationship with APPEGE has been very convenient, particularly when she was able to blame the “secretary” and save her friends, the ethical private agencies in the first official APPEGE report. Taylor is loyal to Secretary Blue, so loyal that she is willing to do all the work so he can play and work on the Best Practice model. During the conversation with APPEGE she wanted to make sure they used the “new language” in their next report. Taylor reminded them those words like “waiting list”, “deficit” and “budget cuts” are passé and that those words do not exist in the language of the department or in the vocabulary of the Governor, therefore, they should not be using it in their report or using those terms as benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of the Department.

She reminded them not to visit the Miami area because the “over achievement” is so great they may get overwhelmed with the numbers. While on the topic of what words to use she happened to glance at a document on top of her desk waiting for her signature. Recognizing what the document is all about she panicked for a second and ended the call with her friends at APPEGE. The scene ends when Ms Taylor tells her assistant to make sure the old investigation that has just surface about her paying private agencies for services before the services were ever delivered just to avoid returning the money to the State is buried deep, deep in the ocean.

Scene Four shows an empty office and a calendar indicating this is the month of February 2005. While the camera is fading away we hear a voice in the background saying, “Have you ever seen the new director of Waiting Care?” “No, do we have one?” “Yes, she was appointed in November. I think she recommended secretary Blue for the position, and now he has offered her this tremendous opportunity.” The scene ends with Secretary Blue’s personal assistant and confidant calling one of the two employees and requests her presence in Secretary Blue’s office after five.

Scene Five: All members of the senior staff are having individual meetings with their units telling them how much they resented Blue for what he was doing to women and to old people. They all acknowledge they knew what was going on and felt compelled after one and a half years to stop the situation this is why they all blow the whistle. This scene ends when a brave newspaper reporter calls to request the time sheets and the travel vouchers for the department’s absentee director of waiting care for the last four month…

To be continued.

News Alert for elders and individuals with disabilities

Last year the Department of Health and Human Services granted discretionary funds to several states for them to create an Aging and Disability Resource Center. The centers will become operational in 17 states in July will begin to integrate the service delivery systems for those two distinct populations. While the idea of integrating the eligibility process for Medicaid has value, advocates of both groups should carefully watch the allocation of funds to each program.

The plan as stated in my previous articles is to merge the funds so at the end the sum will be lesser than its previous parts. This is a silent but effective way to cut funding without getting objections from either group. Each group would then look at the total budget number and celebrate victory. In reality, this integration of funding without boundaries would forever merge the distinct needs of both groups into one global bunch.

Keep your eyes open for each budget category and each budget source.

Under the leadership of Carole Green, the Florida Department of Elder Affairs is re introducing the Better Living for Seniors one stop center in three areas of the state: Orlando, Pasco-Pinellas and Broward County with the announcement of the funding of three pilot Aging and Disabled Adult Resource centers. In reading the department’s press releases one may think the concept was just invented when in reality it has been in existence for years, failing to realize its true value due to lack of funds.

The first “one stop” center began under Governor Bob Martinez’s tenure and created the second largest waiting list in the history of elder programs in Florida. This largest waiting list still exists now. While resources were diverted to create the one stop centers the services needed to keep elders at home were not properly funded, forcing eligible elders to wait for years. The wait was so long that the one stop center became known as the Better Waiting for Seniors one stop center.

The second "one stop" resource center was implemented in the Santa Rosa-Milton area. It began in 2000 and it was a true success until two years ago when elders and disabled adults were placed on waiting lists due to lack of funding to support additional services. Last year in the Santa Rosa-Milton area 1,220 calls from eligible individuals requesting transportation services were left unanswered.

From where I stand the resource centers are adding another layer and absorbing dollars that should go to the direct provision of personal care, Respite services, meals and transportation.

I fear that with the "subtle merging" of the elders and disabled adults populations, the funding for both programs will also be "merged". In the process the funding will be drastically cut or it could even disappear altogether as projected in the President’s new and improved budget.

Show Me The Money

By Gema Hernández

I salute the Ft Myers News Press for suing the Federal Government in an attempt to obtain financial records showing where the money to help hurricane victims has gone. This is an important issue because after all the newspapers headlines applauding the generosity of Congress and the promptness and efficiency of the Federal and the State governments in addressing the situation, now eight month later we are beginning to question if all that glitters was gold.

It is very possible that the records will not be forthcoming because disclosing those financial records may show that the winners in receiving those funds were not the individuals impacted by the Hurricane but the private agencies and corporations that provided what could now be considered a very expensive lending hand. It is also very possible that the federal government will pass the buck to the state agencies by alleging that it was up to the state to determine and distribute the funds.

If we want to get to the bottom of this it is my suggestion that the Ft. Myers News Press also sue the State of Florida who was the recipient of some of the funds. I will be interested to know whatever happened to the millions of dollars given by the Administration of Aging to the Department of Elder Affairs to provide a variety of services to hurricane victims. Money for counseling, food, shelter, respite, transportation and meals have fizzle out in less than six months when it was supposed to last at least for one budget year. Could it be they used the funding to cover outstanding deficits?

If accounting records are not obtain to properly show where the millions have gone it is very possible that individuals like me will come out of this experience thinking the generosity of Congress and the President were just a show to get them re-elected and the millions were just a product of our collective imagination.

Social Security privatization: The new weapon of mass destruction

By Gema G. Hernández

Information about the pros and cons of privatizing Social Security are saturating the American public, and while we may think we have heard all the possible reasons in favor or opposing the plan, in reality we have not heard some of the most fundamental facts at the core of the debate.

At the heart of the Social Security debate is whether or not I support a defined contribution program like the President is proposing where we invest 1% to 3% of our Social Security contribution in the stock market, hoping that that contribution will generate extraordinary results; or whether we support the continuation of a defined benefit program that will generate a secure and set amount of return at the end of our working days.

For those of us who want to gamble with the defined contribution with no set amount of return we already have the 401K program that allows us to invest as much as we can afford in not only the stock market but in mutual funds, annuities and real estate. The purpose of the 401K or the 403K is just that, a way to take personal responsibility for our future and a way to invest in the hope those companies in which we are investing will generate a higher return. Privatizing social security will duplicate this effort because it will replicate the investment strategies of the 401K plans. Investing more in the same system will expose our hard earned dollars to further losses without a safety net to protect us. Why, may I ask, would I like to put all my retirement eggs in one basket, the stock market and leave no eggs to hatch in the security of a defined benefit program?

If we listen carefully to statements proponents of the privatization program are using to support the effort, we will find those statements contradictory and highly questionable to generate the outcome they are trying to achieve. For example, proponents of the program are emphasizing that when the program started there were 16 workers per retiree and now there are only 2 workers per retiree. Their argument is that now and in the near future there will be less contributions coming into the trust fund, making it impossible for the system to support future retirees. However, the solution they are proposing is to take more money out of the system by removing from the 2 workers per retiree ratio an extra 1% to 3 % of the workers’ contributions. If the problem as presented by the supporters of the system is that Social Security is broke, taking money from the system and investing it in the stock market is not going to solve the “financial crisis”

If the problem is the solvency of the system more money coming into the trust fund to support future retirees should be part of the solution. More money could come into the Trust Fund if the administration stops facilitating and promoting the outsourcing of Americans jobs to third countries. Outsourcing jobs decreases the number of workers to support the one retiree ratio. Outsourcing jobs to other countries increases the problem by reducing the number of American workers contributing to Social Security.

If the issue is again more workers and more contributions into the Social Security system, why not remove the cap that exists today whereby those individuals whose income exceeds $90,000 a year only pay social security taxes on the first $90,000 and not on the rest of their salaries. Imagine how much money the system will get if individuals with salaries in the millions will be asked to pay Social Security taxes for the entire million, or half million or a quarter of a million. In addition, if the idea is to bring more contributors into the system, why not ask Congress, the cities, counties and states that are NOT part of Social Security to be part of the program.

My guess is that the 2 to 1 retiree could easily become 3 to 1 retirees. Why not start the debate by leveling the playing field and asking Congress and the President to take a leap of faith, forfeit their private arrangements and become part of the Social Security system? The same rule should apply for those members of Congress 55 or older. They can keep their private program, but those below the magic age of 55 should be asked to participate like the rest of Americans. Once Congress and the President become part of the system I am positive they will become more sensitive to the future outcome of the program.