TITLE V RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Hundreds of private businesses participated in job fairs conducted by Title V Sponsors across the nation this year resulting in nearly 1,000 placements of older workers.

Program participants in the State of Florida placed over 800 older workers in private sector jobs last year in the job bank program alone. Other participants served in State Employment offices as older worker specialists.

Program participants in San Diego are credited with reducing dollar loss due to accidental fire by 88 percent in the district where they have worked for one year in a fire-prevention education effort.

Participants in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania working in a child day care center are credited with a $210,000 per year benefit to the community be enabling 21 parents to work during the day.

One program participant in Puyallup, Washington speaks to 2,500 persons a year on crime prevention. Local police previously unable to operate such a program because of manpower shortages say that savings as a result of prevented crimes are inestimable.

One program participant working in the Michigan Employment Service as an older worker specialist placed 104 seniors in jobs last year, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the State Employment Service and reducing demand for public assistance.

Program participants in the Charleston, South Carolina area have provided minor home repair services to 180 senior citizens during the past year enabling those seniors to remain in their own homes thereby avoiding costly nursing home institutionalization or subsidized housing for the elderly.

One program participant in Memphis, Tennessee single-handedly organized 5,000 marchers for the Hemophilia Foundation's annual fund raising. Another compiled statistics which were later turned over to local social service agencies on the educational and job experience backgrounds on 100 refugee Laotian families. A Project Director in Modesto, California estimates that $166,523 in public assistance payments are saved every year because 61 of the 71 program participants would collect benefits if not for productive employment on the program. Six of the participants provide home health care services to 44 frail elderly people in their own homes resulting in a savings of over $300,000 per year in nursing home costs.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. Bourden is always eloquent and a fine spokesman for his position. We certainly appreciate you coming here today and expressing your thoughts. They were well spoken, to say the least.

Glenna Morey.

STATEMENT OF GLENNA MOREY, GIBSON SENIOR CENTER, NORTH CONWAY, N.H.

Ms. MOREY. That is a pretty hard act to follow.

As director of a senior center in North Conway, I have reason to have a lot of contact with the elderly of the county and throughout the State in listening to many of the things presented here today, it has given me reason to really search the outcome of what really lies in store for, not our senior citizens today but of our senior citizens of tomorrow.

I fully agree with the employment of our elderly people and all our friends today. I realize that many of these people have well earned their rest as far as retirement goes, and the things they lend to us at this time of our lives is important to today and tomor

row.

But I think that it is my feeling-I have heard things here today. What comes to my mind-I have heard of volunteerism, and senior employment. I have had personal contact with people that are living with these things today. And I think on their behalf, if they would allow me, I would like to express for them and for myself and ask you, Congressman, to make sure you weigh very seriously-and I know this isn't any new request. But there are so many little people, unfortunate people, that are really being hurt by decisions from your areas.

And keep those people in mind. You may not know them by name, but we do. When they start cutting back the food stamps on some of our senior citizens because they got fuel assistance through the winter, that is pretty hard for us to even sit by and watch. These things are happening. We are very concerned. And we would like to make our senior citizens' years as comfortable as possible. But we really have had to deal with an awful lot of redtape to bring some of these services to these people. And it is getting more difficult as the time goes on.

I know, for instance, in Carroll County, we have already, from the early beginning, been trying to get by on a shoestring. And now they are even asking us to cut the 24-inch shoestring to 12. And I think there are not too many more places we can cut. And I would appreciate it, on behalf of the senior citizens of Carroll County and the State of New Hampshire, that you would keep this in mind, please.

Thank you.

Mr. GREGG. Thank you. And of course the reason we are here is so that we can get that input.

If we could rotate the folks-get Representative Warburton and Representative Smith to come down and take chairs down here. Ken Hall, please.

STATEMENT OF KEN HALL, GIBSON SENIOR CENTER, NORTH

CONWAY, N.H.

Mr. HALL. I also am from the Gibson Senior Center in North Conway. Our correct name is the Gibson Center for Senior Services. "Services" is perhaps the best designation, the best part of our

name.

We have two employees-we have a maintenance man, also. We run an establishment, about 14 rooms, and serve several dozen people every day over and above the fact that we run a dining room that services 50 sit-down meals and home delivers about 50 or 60 meals. We do this with just a couple of employees and quite a few volunteers.

Along with the volunteers we have people from senior employment. We could not operate this establishment, we could not give the service that we give without the people from senior employ

ment.

These people work part-time, 25 hours a week. What they receive for their work gives them the difference between a mere subsistence level and a chance for a dignified life. It adds dignity to their lives.

I have seen many, many times people come in assigned to a job with us; they are just barely dragging their feet. Within 2 days you would think they are ballerinas-just the uplift they get from the added income and the chance for a good, dignified life.

I get my pension from the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots-not as big as the Steelworkers, but is is a good pension. And that gives me a chance at dignity, too.

Thank you.

Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We appreciate that statement. Cal.

STATEMENT OF CALVIN WARBURTON, REPRESENTATIVE, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. WARBURTON. I am Calvin Warburton, a member of the New Hampshire House. I serve on the labor committee there. I am also a retired clergyman.

My first interest in pensions came in 1946 when I was on the board that dealt with pensions from my church in New Hampshire. At that time I convinced the conference to go from a pay-as-you-go system to a legal reserve system. That has flourished. I have had a good many other opportunities since to be involved with senior citizens and hospitals and homes as well.

In 1978, when the Union Leader indicated that they were going to run some articles on social security, I wrote the managing editor, Mr. Tracy, and said I was interested in providing something. After about 3 months of digging, they published a commentary of mine, and I will leave that commentary here with you. I wish now to summarize my conclusions in that.

One is social security is an insurance program and not a pension program.

Two, social security should be a funded operation. The money should be put to work. If that had been done from the beginning, we would not be in the fiscal problem we are now, and the econo

my would have been strengthened because of the value of compound interest. It would have to, of course, be shielded from political getting into.

Primary funding ought to be by the business and without individual credit. Consequently the payments would be used solely as insurance for loss of income as a result of retirement.

Now, in 1940 I attended a convention in Chicago on hosts and homes. At that particular convention, one of the testimonies was that by the turn of the century people would be living to age 125. It does not now look as if that would come true at the turn of the century. But it may not be long thereafter. So the question was raised, does that mean that people will be old for 60 years, from 65 to 125? And the answer was "No," the middle years would be dramatically increased so that a person who was 85 would be in the same health and condition as a person 45 is today.

I wondered what that might do to the population. However, there are two things that bothered me about that. One is the economy and the other is the emotion.

The question is can society produce enough to provide for a retirement year of 60 years, or can a person earn enough in 40 or 45 years to provide an additional 60 years of living? Well, that might happen, given the increase in computers and robots and so on. But we are not at that particular point now. In our society, a person who gets paid in money, that proves his worth.

And the second point is, can an individual find an occupation which will make living meaningful? Most people who retire live lives of mere existence. An awful lot of them do. I think of a novel, "Chairman Of The Bored." It is about an individual forced to retire at 65 and became bored and a year later set up his own company. You might be interested in reading that.

In an earlier day, men were not automatically put on the shelf. In my home city we had a chief of police who was in his 90's. And one time he was told that in the Memorial Day parade he would have to ride in a car with the rest of the GAR. He refused. He said, "The law provides for a police escort and I will lead the escort. If I do not, there will be no escort and no parade."

He marched for 3 miles leading that particular parade. Life had meaning for him.

There is a need, both economic and emotional, for many people to continue work after 65, and for as long as able.

I have cut this down a little bit. I hope I am within my time. [Material submitted by Mr. Warburton follows:]

[From the Manchester, N.H., Union Leader, May 1, 1978]

A LOOK AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM-THE PROBLEMS AND THE BAND-AID

SOLUTIONS

(By Calvin Warburton)

Social Security is one form of social insurance. Social insurance is insurance in which individuals pay according to their ability and receive according to their need. This can be total or partial. Total means that everyone receives the same return no matter what is paid in. Partial means that there is a tilt toward need. This is the case in the United States Social Security system. Those on the low end of the salary scale, even though they receive less than others, receive a greater amount in proportion to the monies contributed. Those with spouses who are not eligible for Social

Security payments on their own, receive more than those with no spouses, and more in proportion to contributions than those with spouses covered by their own work. Those who leave minor or disabled children have a coverage others do not have. Furthermore, spouses not eligible on their own for Medicare, are covered in most cases by Medicare. Employed people are usually favored over self-employed. Those receiving Supplemental Security Income, small though it may be, receive proportionately more.

The contribution to Social Security may be direct or indirect. In our system it is both. It is direct in the amount deducted from wages or paid as self-employed, and for Part B of Medicare. It is indirect in the contribution made by business which appears as part of the cost of services and supplies. It is also indirect in the amount paid by the government in the administration of the system and in support of Medicare. In the event that the presently proposed action in Congress takes place, it will be indirect as it is paid out of the total receipts of the Federal Government.

The primary purpose of Social Security is to insure loss of earnings as a result of age. The depression caused those interested in Social Security to view it as a means to release people at the top (in job or time) from the work force thus making room for newcomers at the bottom. Other forms of social insurance include unemployment insurance and health insurance.

HOW FUNDED

Funding for Social Security was the source of much debate. It was the intention of the proposers that the funding be a three-part contribution by the employees, the employers, and the government. The government was not included simply because it was thought that the government contribution would not be needed. The proposers always felt that at some point the federal treasury would have to pick up a third of the cost.

With the addition of Medicare, the treasury is picking up part of the cost. However, the individual is also paying part of the cost-a direct and increasing monthly payment for Part B, and an indirect and increasing payments for certain limitations.

The question of funding brought forth a debate on the method. Secretary Morgenthau felt there should be a large reserve, which the proposers suggested would be an unwarranted brake on the economy by removing such a large amount from current resources. The result was that the system was set up mainly on a pay-as-you-go basis, with a reserve only large enough to cover one year's cost. This reserve was invested in government bonds, which is an "I Owe Me" proposition. If you loan money to the government, then the government owes you the amount loaned plus interest. If you loan money to yourself, it is gone. Government bonds may be a good investment for people and institutions, but not for the government.

HOW HAS SOCIAL SECURITY DEVELOPED

While Social Security's primary purpose was to insure loss of earnings as a result of old age, it has been extended to insure loss of earnings as a result of illness. The family is regarded as an earning unit (although there may be more than one producer of income in the family). Thus presently, widows, widowers, minor children, unemployable children, and dependent parents are covered.

Hospital and Medical insurance has been added for those 65 and over who are eligible for Social Security payments, or who are willing to buy the hospital and/or the medical coverage. Also covered are certain others under 65 on a need basis. There is a death benefit for primary beneficiaries of Social Security. Besides there has been added a Supplemental Security Income for those over 72 who are not otherwise eligible for payments.

Originally in 1937, those covered under Social Security were employed persons. However not all employed persons were covered. This has been extended to cover 90 percent of the income earners and their families. The coverage for self-employed began in 1950 and increased in various steps through 1965. Originally the tax rate was 1 percent each for the employee and the employer against a maximum of $3,000. In 1977 that had reached 5.85 percent for each party up to a maximum of $16,500. For self-employed, the rate in 1951 was 2.25 percent on a maximum $3,600, and in 1977 7.9 percent on a maximum of $16,500.

The most recent action of Congress has raised the percentage contribution in 1978 to 6.05 percent each to a maximum of $17,700. This will increase over the next 12 years to 7.65 percent each on a maximum of $29,700. The self-employed has also increased in the same ratio. There is no end in sight, in spite of all the statements of some members of Congress.