Governor Corbett plans to bar Pennsylvania seniors and families with modest savings from getting SNAP (food stamps) starting May 1.  This issue is of great concern to seniors.  

Families with as little as $2,000 ($3,250 for seniors and people with disabilities) would no longer qualify for benefits. Under the proposed asset test, tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians would be cut from the program in this tough economy.  In addition to increasing hunger, an asset test would hurt Pennsylvania businesses and the economy, because every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity.  SeniorLAW Center is a signator to the attached letter objecting to the asset test, joining the Coalition Against Hunger and other partners, because seniors are more likely than others to have modest savings to pay for increasing costs of living, medications, utilities and other necessities, and would be particularly affected by the new requirement. 

You can also join us in this advocacy. 

Call 800-515-8134 this week.  Tell Governor Corbett:

“I urge you to stop the asset test for food stamps. This plan would hurt seniors and Pennsylvania’s economy.” (phone line provided by AARP PA)

Key points about this issue are below.  Thank you for joining us in the fight against hunger and for all you do to protect the rights of older Pennsylvanians.

Key Points About Hunger, Food Stamps and the Proposed Asset Test: 

The asset test punishes people for saving money: Saving money is one of the surest paths from poverty to self-sufficiency. Forcing a family to drain their savings before receiving help is not only cruel, but counterproductive in helping them move off government assistance. Recognizing the devastating effects of an asset test, 36 states and the District of Columbia have no asset test for SNAP.  

An asset test would hurt seniors and people who’ve recently lost their jobs:  Under the planned asset test, tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians could lose their SNAP benefits, particularly seniors living on fixed incomes and the recently unemployed—two groups that are more likely than others to have savings or cars.      

The planned asset test limit ($2,000 for most households/$3,250 for seniors or people with disabilities) is unreasonable. The $2,000 federal asset test has been in place since 1986, when that amount could buy twice as much as it can today. A household with $2,000 in savings would be ill-prepared to pay for medical emergencies or the first and last month’s rent required for an apartment of their own.

An asset test would hurt Pennsylvania businesses and the economy: Pennsylvania could lose tens of millions of dollars each year in federally funded SNAP benefits, which would otherwise be pumped into the state’s economy as food stamps are spent at grocery stores, farmers’ markets and small businesses across the state.  Because every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity, Pennsylvania stands to lose millions more if the asset test is reinstated.

An asset test would not save Pennsylvania any state taxpayer money: SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government, so no state tax dollars would be saved. The costs for administering food stamps are split between the federal government and the state. By adding an asset test, the state’s administrative costs would actually increase to pay for technological upgrades, additional training and staff time.

An asset test would not weed out waste, fraud and abuse in the Department of Public Welfare: Pennsylvania currently has one of the lowest SNAP fraud rates in the nation: less than 1 percent, according to the USDA. The planned asset test would place further strain on already understaffed County Assistance Offices, increasing opportunities for errors in processing applications.   

 INFO ABOUT THE ASSET TEST

REAL STORIES

HOW SNAP SAVES MONEY

ASSET TEST SIGN-ON LETTER

Article is below:

The Dangerous Impact of Proposed Voter ID Laws

By Karen C. Buck

“The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.”

— Lyndon B. Johnson

The Pennsylvania House has passed and the Senate is poised to vote on HB 934, amending state election law. Commonly known as the “Voter ID legislation,” requiring all voters to produce photo ID each time they vote, this legislation will have a profound impact on our most fundamental right as Americans, posing significant questions as to who will be allowed to exercise their right to vote — and who will not.

WHAT THE LAW PROVIDES

HB 934 in its current form requires all voters to produce “proof of identification” each time they vote in any election. Proof of ID is currently defined as unexpired photo identification issued by the U.S. government, the commonwealth, an accredited Pennsylvania public or private institution of higher learning, or a Pennsylvania long-term care facility.

Recent amendments to the bill provide narrow exceptions, including driver’s licenses expired within the past year, absentee ballots for uniformed and overseas citizens and alternative ballots for residents of long-term care facilities — but only those assigned to an inaccessible polling place would be relieved of the photo ID requirement.

If you don’t have photo ID, you must file a “provisional ballot,” which will not be counted at all unless it meets a number of requirements, including providing to the county board of elections, within six days, affirmation of identity, indigency and/or an original or copy of your photo ID.

EVERYONE HAS ONE, DON’T THEY?

Proponents contend that HB 934 would not pose a major inconvenience to voters, since most adults carry one form of photo ID or another. But a great many Americans do not have photo ID — approximately 11 percent of all Americans. The Brennan Center for Justice, in “Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans’ Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification” (2006), estimates that 33 million Americans do not have photo ID. Seniors, the disabled, minorities, youth and women are disproportionately represented, including as many as 18 percent of American citizens age 65 and above — more than 6 million seniors — and approximately 25 percent of African-Americans (compared to 8 percent of non-minority Americans).

While it would appear easy to obtain photo ID for those of us who have driver’s licenses or passports, those who do not must overcome a number of financial and other obstacles, particularly arduous for those who are elderly, disabled, low-income or live in rural areas. What seems a simple process for those of us who have the luxury of a car, easy access to public transportation, and are able-bodied and economically secure, is a laborious task for many of our fellow citizens.

Many voters would be unable to produce the documents necessary to obtain a new state ID. In the absence of a current driver’s license or state photo ID, one must produce two proofs of residency (tax records, lease, mortgage, W-2 forms, current weapons permit or utility bills), a Social Security card, and either a current passport or birth certificate with a raised seal (and if your name has been changed, you must provide documentation that connects the names, such as an original marriage certificate, divorce decree or court order). Voter ID requirements affect older voters profoundly, including those who no longer drive and do not need licenses; do not now travel internationally or never did and have no passport; or have difficulty obtaining birth certificates from many decades ago or were never provided birth certificates (for example, Southern-born African-Americans or Native Americans who were not allowed in some white hospitals, and those who were born at home in decades past prior to birth certificate filing requirements). Moreover, although included in the list of acceptable photo ID, it appears that most “care facilities,” including nursing homes, do not issue such ID to their residents.

Many individuals without ID may be uncertain about how to go about obtaining the underlying documentation, and many who live on low, fixed incomes will find the costs associated with these documents unduly burdensome. The costs have been likened by many to a “poll tax,” outlawed over four decades ago by the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (a state “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.”).

Thousands of voters who currently have no ID and do not drive would also need to find transportation to the DMV in their county to get a new ID card, despite any disabilities, frailties, health, mobility or financial challenges they might have. This will be especially difficult for seniors, disabled and low-income voters and those living in rural counties where they must travel dozens of miles and no public transportation options are available.

Indeed, those who are most likely not to have ID are those who are least able to get it and least likely to be equipped to deal with this added obstacle to the polls. Even with investment in strong educational campaigns, many voters will not know of new requirements when they show up at the polls.

While photo ID may be required for a great many activities, such as jumping on a plane, renting a video or even buying a case of beer, these activities cannot be equated with a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed to every American citizen. Photo ID, showing one’s “papers,” is not required to be an American. At least not yet.

WHY REQUIRE PHOTO ID?

Voter ID restrictions address only voter impersonation fraud at the polls: One individual impersonates another. Is this a pervasive problem? In 2007, New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center released “The Truth About Voter Fraud,” the most extensive analysis of voter fraud claims to date, finding that individual voter fraud targeted by legislative efforts such as voter ID “is exceedingly rare; one is more likely to be struck by lightning.”

The Voter ID legislation is opposed by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, the bipartisan organization representing all county commissioners across the commonwealth, who serve both as election boards under Pennsylvania law and oversee elections. In testimony to the House State Government Committee in March 2011, CCAP found no evidence of voter impersonation fraud, substantiated by a search of case records and anecdotal information from the counties. In their words, it is “a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Unlike many other states, current Pennsylvania law already has a number of safeguards in place to protect the integrity of our votes. Pennsylvania law requires voters to show valid ID the first time they vote at a polling place (which may be a photo or nonphoto ID), a voter’s signature at the time of voting and comparison to that in the register, and announcement of the voter’s name so it may be heard by all members of the election board and all watchers present in the polling place. Additionally, Pennsylvania’s poll books are directly cross-checked against Department of Health reported deaths, and the counties do follow up on any where there is a match against a registration record. A person attempting to vote under another’s name in Pennsylvania would have to find a currently registered individual who had voted in the polling place before, pose as that person at the polls by duplicating his or her signature, successfully forge the person’s signature while looking at it upside down, reasonably match the identifying information in the book, and be sure that the individual he or she is impersonating does not show up to vote also — and that no neighbor, colleague or acquaintance of the voter is at the polls at the time.

COSTS

At minimum, to pass constitutional scrutiny, voter ID legislation must also include provisions to provide free state-issued IDs, universal access to acquiring IDs, and a comprehensive public education/outreach campaign to inform voters about new requirements. The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center has reported that HB 934 will cost at least $11 million to implement in the first year alone. Expenses include statewide public education efforts, training and oversight of poll workers across the commonwealth, provision of photo ID cards, and additional efforts to provide, receive and review provisional ballots, absentee ballots and alternative ballots.

State photo ID laws also remain vulnerable to constitutional attack. In 2008, a divided U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board upheld Indiana’s photo ID law against a broad attack to its constitutionality, but also cautioned that restrictive voting ID laws are not to burden specific groups of citizens. The court indicated that more compelling evidence of such burdens might have justified striking Indiana’s ID laws and specifically left open the possibility of lawsuits against ID laws that impair particular groups and individual citizens such as older voters, poor voters, the homeless and students. The court also did not eliminate the possibility of constitutional challenge to ID laws that were more burdensome than those at issue in Crawford , which, among other things, included an alternate voting method for elders.

Our work at SeniorLAW Center is protecting the rights of older Pennsylvanians. We serve 8,000-10,000 older Pennsylvanians annually with our many programs and services, including seniors in all of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties through our statewide legal HelpLine, to save homes, provide protection from abuse, fraud and exploitation, and promote access to safe, healthy lives of independence and dignity. We focus on the rights of those who came before us, who fought not only our wars, but the battle for civil and voting rights. Voting is indeed a “powerful instrument” for fighting injustice and a hallmark of our democracy. Let’s protect the right to vote, of our elders, and of all voters, not place unnecessary obstacles in their path. •

Karen C. Buck is the executive director of SeniorLAW Center, a nonprofit public interest law organization that protects the rights of older Pennsylvanians through legal representation, education and advocacy.

 “Reprinted with permission from the 1/23/2012 issue of The Legal Intelligencer © 2012 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.  All rights reserved.”

Board Chair, Ronald J. Shaffer, Esquire

Ron Shaffer, of Fox Rothschild LLP, serves as Chair of SeniorLAW Center’s Board of Directors.  Ron joined SeniorLAW Center’s Board of Directors in 2007 after learning about the Center’s amazing work on behalf of seniors at a cocktail party and believing it was a good fit for his interest in giving back to the community.  Ron’s leadership experience and talents have been a gift to SeniorLAW Center.  Ron was first elected Secretary and a member of the Executive Committee and then elected to be Board Chair in October 2010.  In that role, Ron leads a diverse and talented group of attorneys, aging advocates, financial experts, and other professionals in monthly meetings, special events, and a myriad of ongoing activities to keep SeniorLAW Center’s programs and mission vibrant, raise awareness, and strengthen resources. 

Ron demonstrates exemplary leadership by example:  he not only leads the Board, but also serves as a pro bono volunteer, sharing his time to protect the rights of individual older Pennsylvanians.  Ron greeted special guest Mayor Nutter while also serving individual seniors at our annual bilingual community-based Latino Elders pro bono legal services project with PECO, area law firms and other organizations, by drafting and executing Health Care Powers of Attorney and Living Wills for elders in Kensington.  Ron also serves as a Pennsylvania SeniorLAW HelpLine volunteer, providing limited representation, legal advice, counsel information and referrals to seniors throughout the Commonwealth through SeniorLAW’s statewide telephone helpline project.  “My volunteer work for SeniorLAW Center is among my most rewarding experiences as an attorney.  You are able to see the immediate and direct impact you have on people’s lives.  SeniorLAW center’s clients are extremely appreciative and grateful for the legal advice and guidance we provide.” 

Ron is currently a partner and the former Chair of the Litigation Department at the firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  His practice focuses on commercial litigation and general business advice  He is a proud graduate of Pennsylvania State University in 1976 with a B.A. in political science and of Villanova University School of Law in 1980. Upon graduation, Ron served a judicial clerkship with the Honorable Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.  He joined Fox Rothschild LLP in 1983.  Ron has been admitted to practice in both federal and state courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  He lives with his wife Debbie, also an attorney, and their two golden retrievers in Huntingdon Valley.  Their son lives in New York City and works in the financial industry.  In his time away from the practice of law, you will find Ron antiquing, riding his bike at the shore or walking his dogs.

 “As attorneys, it is our responsibility to give back to those less fortunate than ourselves. My involvement with SeniorLAW Center has been rewarding beyond description.  I am inspired by the attorneys and staff at SeniorLAW Center who have devoted their careers and sacrificed financially to helping the elderly who do not have advocates to protect their interests.  It is an honor for me to serve as Board Chair of SeniorLAW Center.”

 Litigation partners and associates of Pepper Hamilton have formed a pro bono practice group to specialize in this area of law which helps vulnerable seniors stay independent in safe, habitable homes.  Pepper’s new practice group is co-chaired by partners Gay Parks Rainville, Vice Chair of SeniorLAW Center’s Board of Directors, and Laurence Shiekman, both of whom are also handling cases.  

Pepper attorneys attended a legal training in April 2011 on how to handle a home improvement contractor fraud case and eight teams of attorneys volunteered to accept cases.  Now, just months later, the team of Mary Margaret Spence and Anthony Vale have successfully prosecuted a claim for negligent work in the home of a low-income senior and recovered $4800 (in certified funds).   In light of the contractor’s shoddy work and treatment of the senior, the legal team turned down an offer from the contractor to return to the home and instead, tried the claim and won. 

Congratulations, Mary Margaret and Tony, and thank you for the gift of your time and talent on behalf of this senior homeowner.    

A majority of older Philadelphians own their homes.  Seniors over the age of 65 in Philadelphia account for 30% of the total homeowners in the city.  Their housing is aging and creating an increasing demand for repairs. As the need for repairs grows, so does exploitation by repair contractors:  seniors are targeted by unscrupulous home repair contractors as easy prey for those who would propose to perform unneeded home repairs, or enter into contracts to perform work that is needed, and which is never performed, completed or done in shoddy fashion.  Homelessness is an imminent reality for many of our community’s poor elders.  For most of our low-income seniors, their home is their only significant asset.  Addressing their housing legal needs enables them to use their limited income on medicine, food and other necessities, and enables them to age in their own homes and communities, rather than being forced into a care facility.    

The impact of Pepper’s volunteer efforts will be powerful:   enabling elders to maintain their home and their most important rights and needs, avoiding homelessness, loss of independence and institutionalization, and making their homes safe, healthy and dignified places to live.    SeniorLAW Center is proud to partner with Pepper Hamilton.

Partner of the Year: an organization, corporation or law firm that has collaborated and partnered with SeniorLAW Center in outstanding ways to protect and promote the rights of older Pennsylvanians and further SeniorLAW Center’s mission.

Volunteer of the Year: an individual who has made exceptional volunteer efforts and demonstrated outstanding commitment to serving the needs of SeniorLAW Center’s senior clients.

Senior Champion/Advocate of the Year: an individual or entity that has demonstrated leadership in championing and advocating for the rights of seniors (and their communities) and made significant impact in improving and enriching their lives.

Nominate an individual or firm by December 15^th. 

Award Nomination Form

Although there is pending legislation to require photo ID of all voters in the future, you currently do NOT need to show photo ID to vote.

However, if you’ve never voted before or are voting in a new division, you are considered a new voter according to federal law and must show proof of identification. It does not have to include a photo.

Accepted forms of ID for new voters include a driver’s license or state or federal ID card; U.S. passport or student, employee or armed forces ID; or any of the following provided it displays a current name and address: voter registration card, utility bill, bank statement, paycheck or government check. For a complete list of approved ID, click here. Additionally, if a new voter cannot show ID, does not appear on the voter registry or is challenged by an election official, that voter may vote via provisional ballot.

To find out where your local polling place is on Election Day, click here.
The right to vote is a fundamental one, which we should not take for granted.

Be a part of our democracy. Exercise your right to vote. Make your voice heard!

2012 SeniorPROM  

A celebration for all ages to benefit the work of SeniorLAW Center

Friday, May 4, 2012 ● 6-10 PM ● The Westin Philadelphia

CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

□ $10,000 PARTNERSHIP LEVEL: King and Queen of Prom

      ●          Identified as a “Presenting Partner” on invitations

      ●          Invitations for twelve (12) guests to attend the event – a reserved table of 12 for dinner

      ●          Your company’s name and logo prominently displayed at the event, included on our                            website (with a link to your website) and included in invitations and promotional                                 materials.

□ $7,500 PARTNERSHIP LEVEL:  Graduate

          ●        All of the benefits of the $5,000 (Senior) Partnership Level plus

            ●          Invitations for ten (10) guests to attend the event with reserved seating for dinner

□ $5,000 PARTNERSHIP LEVEL:  Senior     

          ●        All of the benefits of the $2,500 (Junior) Partnership Level plus                                 

      ●          Invitations for eight (8) guests to attend the event with reserved seating for dinner

□ $2,500 PARTNERSHIP LEVEL:  Junior                                                                   

      ●          Invitations for six (6) guests to attend the event

      ●          Your company’s name prominently displayed at the event, included on our website

                  (with a link to your website) and included in invitations and promotional materials.

□ $1,000 PARTNERSHIP LEVEL:  Sophomore                                                                         

      ●          Invitations for four (4) guests to attend the event

      ●          Your company’s name listed on our website and acknowledged at event.

□ $500 PARTNERSHIP LEVEL:  Freshman                                                                                  

      ●          Invitations for two (2) guests to attend the event  

      ●          Your company’s name listed on our website and acknowledged at event.  

□ $250 PARTNERSHIP LEVEL:  Booster                                                                          

●          Your company’s name listed on our website and acknowledged at event. 

For more information, please contact Larry Felzer at (215) 701-3203 or lfelzer@seniorlawcenter.org or visit www.seniorlawcenter.org

You may submit your sponsorship and pay online on our website at www.seniorlawcenter.org/events/

2012 SeniorPROM

A celebration for all ages to benefit the work of SeniorLAW Center

Friday, May 4, 2012 ● 6-10 PM ● The Westin Philadelphia

You may submit your sponsorship and pay online on our website at www.seniorlawcenter.org/events/

Name :____________________________________________________________________

Company Name (if applicable):

__________________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip: ____________________________________________________________

Telephone: ________________________________________________________________

Email: ____________________________________________________________________

□  Enclosed please find my check payable to SeniorLAW Center

                        Mail to: Lawrence Felzer

                                      SeniorLAW Center

                                  100 South Broad Street, Suite 1810  Philadelphia, PA  19110

□ Please charge my credit card

                         ___ VISA  ___ MC  ____ Discover  ___ American Express

                                Name on Card ___________________________________________

                                Billing Address __________________________________________

                                Billing City, State, Zip ____________________________________

                                Expiration Date _____________________   Security Code _______

You may also pay online on our website at www.seniorlawcenter.org/events/

□  We cannot use our tickets; please give them to a senior or guest who otherwise would     not be able to attend.