The White House conferences on aging typically have been important weeklong events to address a variety of salient issues around aging. This year's nonevent scheduled for Monday is a tragic missed opportunity to address innovative ways to deal with one of the most pressing social challenges of our time. Instead it will be a hackneyed, one-day pseudo-event with little creativity, no real dialogue and no opportunity to create an agenda for the next decade. Apparently there is no funding for a gathering that traditionally has been used to set agendas for policies on aging in ensuing decades.
If ever we need to engage the best and the brightest, it is now. At a time when our society confronts great challenges from an aging society, we need to think creatively about how to address them. Old solutions will not fit the current times.
The four topics of focus — healthy aging, improved health and social services, elder justice and income security — are good areas to focus on, but not to simply summarize, what has been done. Each demands attention to the accomplishments, the gaps, the challenges and the opportunities for doing better. It is clear that demographic and economic forces will not allow us to just continue on as we have been going. Innovation and creativity are needed. We need to raise public consciousness about these issues and suggest reasonable ways to meet the challenge of the next decades.
If the White House conference is a dud, perhaps we need a state conference on aging that can tap the talents of Minnesotans who have led the nation in addressing such issues. Let's convene consumers, providers, scholars and policymakers to think creatively about how to meaningfully and realistically address the economic, social and political implications of the demographic evolution we are living in.
Dr. Robert Kane, Minneapolis
The writer is a professor in the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health.
MINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
No, this is not the group looking out for small businesses
As a small-business owner, I'm offended by Lee Schafer's claim in his July 5 column ("Business climate not same for all") that "the business group that represents mom-and-pops is the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce." If he'd taken the time to gain input from anyone other than Charlie Weaver, Schafer would have found that the Minnesota Chamber lobbies against the best interests of truly small businesses and has been bought by the large corporations to do their bidding exclusively.
Ninety-five percent of Minnesota companies have fewer than 10 employees, and the vast majority of us do not pay corporate property taxes, nor do we make enough to be taxed at the 9.85 percent level that Schafer mentions. So when the Chamber is heavily funded to lobby at the State Capitol to lower corporate property taxes, it's threatening to raise the personal property taxes of everyone else in order to supplement the 5 percent of large corporate owners, many of whom don't even live in Minnesota, and some not even in the United States.
Actual small-business owners are tired of the Minnesota Chamber saying that it's looking out for "small business" when it really means "our large corporate backers."