GBO NEWS: Upending Ageism Series Gets Grant; Immigration Policy Hurting Woman; Bankrupt vs. Not Bankrupt—Shaky Reporting on Social Security; Over Half of Middle-Income Seniors to Need Housing, Caregiving; & MORE
GENERATIONS BEAT ONLINE NEWS
E-News of the Journalists Network on Generations – Celebrating 26 Years.
May 1, 2019 — Volume 26, Number 6
EDITOR’S NOTE: GBONews, e-news of the Journalists Network on Generations (JNG), publishes alerts for journalists, producers and authors covering generational issues. Send your news of important stories or books (by you and others), fellowships, awards or pertinent kvetches to GBO News Editor Paul Kleyman. To subscribe to GBONews.org at no charge, simply sending a request to Paul with your name, address, phone number and editorial affiliation or note that you freelance. For each issue, you’ll receive the table of contents in an e-mail, so just click through to the full issue at www.gbonews.org. GBONews does not provide its list to other entities.
In This Issue: #mayday, #mayday, #mayday.
1.EYES ON THE PRIZE: *** 2019 California Documentary Project Grantsto “Upending Ageism”Audio Series Among 4 Generational Productions.
2.GOOD SOURCES:
*** “Women Caring for Our Aging in Place Seniors Will Lose Out Because of U.S. Immigration Policies,” Journal of Aging & Social Policy;
*** “Renters Over 60 Grew by 43% in a Decade,” RENTCafé;
*** “More Than Three-Quarters of Low-Income Older Californian Tenants Are Rent Burdened,” UCLA’s Center for Health Policy Research.
3.FISCAL REFORM SCHOOL: *** “‘Bankrupt’ / ‘Not Bankrupt’ – Contradictory Social Security Reportingand Shaky Public Confidence”
4.THE STORYBOARD:
*** “Ageism: A ‘Prevalent and Insidious’ Health Threat,”by Paula Span, New York Times “New Old Age” column;
*** “54% of Middle-Income Seniors Could Need Housing, Care Help by 2029, NIC-Funded Study Finds,” by Lois A. Bowers, McKnight’s Senior Living;
*** “Aging In America: News And Trends From 2 Summits,”by Rich Eisenberg, PBS Next Avenue/Forbes;
*** “Older Americans Act Needs Money, Support,”by Tamara Lytle, AARP Bulletin; and “Time to Reauthorize the Older Americans Act” by Wendy Fox-Grage, AARP’s Public Policy Institute.
1.EYES ON THE PRIZE
*** Four Generational Productions received 2019 California Documentary Project Grants from the California Humanities program, supporting audio and visual media, in April. They include three of this year’s 10 production grants and one of the program’s four research-and-development awards. The gen-beat production awards went to:
* “Living in the Layers: Upending Ageism in the Golden State,” a proposed audio series by Tina Antolini, that will combine narrative storytelling with elders’ audio diaries. The project challenges the ageist stereotypes affecting many Californians over 65, the state’s fastest growing demographic. APeabody-Award-winning storyteller and radio producer, Antolini has worked in public radio for more than 10 years, including at NPR’s State of the Re:Union (SOTRU) and at New England Public Radio. She won a Peabody and a national Edward R. Murrow Award for her work on SOTRU. She’s also the host and producer of Gravy, a podcast with the Southern Foodways Alliance, which was named the James Beard Foundation’s Publication of the Year for 2015.
* “Return to Oaxacalifornia,” by Trisha Ziff, a film on three generations of one Mexican American family over 25 years reflecting on the complexity of migration between Mexico and the U.S. Set in Fresno, Calif.
* “FANNY: The Right to Rock,” a film directed by Bobbi Jo Hartabout the 1970s-era Filipina American rock band Fanny, “the first female band to release an LP with a major record label (Warner Music/1970). Adored by David Bowie, the groundbreaking impact of these women of color has been lost in the mists of time…until now,” says the grant announcement.” It also notes the production will be “part road trip, part inquiry, part political, social, and cultural mirror.”
Tapped for a research-and-development grant is “Third Act,” a film by director Tadashi Nakamura. He will explore the life and work of his father,“pioneering filmmaker Robert A. Nakamura, considered the “Godfather of Asian American media,” as he reflects on his 50-year career and the psychological wounds from his family’s incarceration during WWII, says the Cal Humanities release.
One aging-related documentary of note that received Cal Humanities support in recent years is The Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin, by filmmaker Arwen Curry.
Shown on PBS and currently making the rounds of film festivals, it’s already racked up many awards. The profile of the late author of such science fiction and fantasy fare as A Wizard of Earthsea (1968), The Left Hand of Darkness(1969), and The Dispossessed (1974), chronicles the maturing of a writer and evolution of a literary feminist. It’s well worth watching if it comes your way.
2. GOOD SOURCES
*** “Women Caring for Our Aging in Place Seniors Will Lose Out Because of U.S. Immigration Policies,” by Stephen M. Golant, PhD, professor emeritus, University of Florida, Gainesville, Journal of Aging & Social Policy (April 15, 2019): Golant, author of Aging in the Right Place (Health Professions Press, 2015), says in the article’s abstract, “This country’s immigration policies will make it even more difficult for women caring for older persons to hire [direct-care] workers. Over 25 percent of home care workers are low-skilled immigrants or foreign-born.
However, the Trump administration’s policies reduce the number of immigrants entering the U.S. and specifically choke off the various pathways that enable low-skilled persons to be hirable in the home care sector. Female caregivers seeking relief from their caregiving responsibilities will lose out unless we remove these immigration barriers.”
Golant has long written about housing and senior living issues, including a major report some years ago on aging for the Florida Commission on the Status of Women. Because he examines the social ripple effects of public policies on aging in place, he’s been widely interviewed over the years. Reporters can reach him by phone, at 352-371-0797, or by email: golant@ufl.edu OR smgolant@gmail.com.
*** “The Next Gen of Renters: Mom and Dad – Renters over 60 Grew by 43% in a Decade,” by Florentina Sarac, RENTCaféis a nationwide apartment search website offering original analysis of the real estate market (March 4, 2019): This piece, notes initially that 22% of the United States population is 60-plus and aging “at a very fast pace” (U.S. Census). Reflecting the change is that the “national median age from 36.7 in 2007 to 38.1 in 2017, the highest it’s ever been.”
Says the proprietary report, “Stemming from a decline in homeownership, older renter households increased faster than older owner households – 43% versus 31%.” RENTCafé goes on, “Past studies we conducted show that the older population is no longer enthusiastic about homeownership, with many seniors starting to downsize and move into rentals. As their children move out, they find themselves alone, in a big house that costs a lot to maintain, causing them to rethink their housing choices.”
In the new survey, “Austin, Texas, takes the first place as the city with the highest percentage change in the share of 60+ renter households, increasing by 113% in the 10-year period [2007-2017] with Phoenix, Ariz., a close second (112%) and Fort Worth next at 95%.” Aside from growth percentages, though, New York City “had the largest share of 60-plus renter households in 2017 – of 27% or 572,130 renter households.”
Other big towns with high shares of 60-plus renter households in the survey are Baltimore (25%), Detroit and San Francisco (24%), followed closely by Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Louisville 60-plus and Washington, D.C. RENTCafé provides an interactive U.S. map (click here ) showing the share of 60-plus renters in over 300 cities.
* A Related Sourcethat GBONews previously reported on is last fall’s fact sheet titled, “More Than Three-Quarters of Low-Income Older Californian Tenants Are Rent Burdened.” It’s by UCLA’s Center for Health Policy Research. The study found that 78.4 percent of the Golden State’s more than half-million older, low-income renters are under a moderate-to-severe rent burden.
3.FISCAL REFORM SCHOOL:
‘Bankrupt’ / ‘Not Bankrupt’ – Contradictory Social Security Reporting and Shaky Public Confidence
*** The Headline Tilt-a-Whirl on Social Security’s Status mustseem almost as disorientingas a Trump tweet-twister to news audiences concerned with their retirement future. Responding to the April 22 release of this year’s Social Security Trustees report, Los Angeles Times’ Michael Hiltzik published a story headed, “Surprise! Social Security Has Gotten Healthier.”
That must have been a surprise, indeed, for Americans exposed to most national news of the Trustees’ report card on the program, because other major media sources, such as NPR Newsand the PBS NewsHourannounced flatly that government expects Social Security and Medicare to become “bankrupt” and “insolvent” by 2035.
Some may regard the difference as mere syntactical toggling, but in a week when national media are atwitter about President Trump’s 10,000th false or misleading statement, journalists might wonder so many media outlets can be disagreeing on the facts of Social Security.
Leaving aside Medicare here, which is a separate discussion, the nation’s old-age pension program is either closing in on “bankruptcy,” that is beyond anything-can-happen speculation, or it isn’t, right? That the contradictory media reports are so starkly disparate is consequential, as surveys demonstrate. Americans, already nervous about the country’s wealth disparity, find themselves caught between their well-documented support for social insurance programs and their shaky confidence in the durability of old age and disability security in this wealthiest of nations. (More about this below.)
Typical of the mainstream media coverage was “Medicare’s Fiscal Outlook Deteriorates as 2026 Funding Cliff Looms, Trump Administration Says,” by Jeff Stein (Washington Post). The header on New York Times business writer Alan Rappeport’s story was “Social Security and Medicare Funds Face Insolvency, Report Finds.” Yet, six paragraphs in, though, the NYT story qualified, “Although the report presented a grim long-term outlook, it was something of a bright spot that Social Security’s reserves are not depleting more quickly. . . . Government officials said during a news briefing before the release of the report that a strengthening economy and broader access to health care, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, are responsible for declining disability claims.” Huh–it’s bad, but not so much?
Who had it right? Kudos to the few, such as Hiltzik and Erika Beras of the Marketplace “Morning Report,” for their accuracy. Analysis by Motley Fool’s Sean Williams, stated, “Social Security is in absolutely no danger of going bankrupt. Even if there wasn’t a dime left in its asset reserves, the recurring revenue from the program’s 12.4% payroll tax and the taxation of some Social Security benefits would allow payouts to continue for eligible beneficiaries.”
He did discuss the report’s caution, “But if something isn’t done to address the estimated $13.2 trillion cash shortfall the program faces between 2034 and 2092, the aforementioned benefit cut could be the result.” (A footnote, here: Experts say that nothing in the Social Security Act would allow the program to simply reduce scheduled benefit amounts without further congressional action.)
A bit more reporting by national media might have led to a less brow-furrowed tone from one of the long list of respected progressive expert in Washington. For instance, Kathleen Romig and her colleagues at the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities (CBPP), reported, on April 22, “Financial Challenges Facing Social Security and Medicare Largely Unchanged From Last Year, Except for Improvement in Disability Insurance.”
The CBPP paper states, “Both Social Security and Medicare face long-run financing challenges that policymakers must address, though the challenges should be manageable, especially if policymakers don’t wait too long to act. The programs are not ‘going bankrupt’ or ‘running out of money,’ as some critics have suggested.”
Also, Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works and chair of the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, blogged on Forbes.com a commentary headlined, “Probable Misreporting Of Just-Released 2019 Social Security Trustees Report.”
She wrote: “According to the new report, Social Security is 100% funded for the next 16 years, 93% funded for the next 25 years, 87% funded over the next 50 years and 84% funded for the next three-quarters of a century. There is no question that Congress can raise enough revenue to eliminate the projected shortfall. Indeed, we can afford to expand Social Security.”
Altman, who served as a staff attorney for Alan Greenspan when he chaired the 1983 bipartisan commission credited with saving the program, is author of The Battle for Social Security. She noted the Trustees report projects that by the end of the 21stcentury, the program “will cost just 6.07% of GDP. That is considerably lower, as a percentage of GDP, than what is spent today by Germany, Austria, France and most other industrialized countries on their retirement, survivors and disability programs.” Not exactly a desperate circumstance showing Uncle Sam with moths flying out of his empty pension wallet.
Hyped Reporting, Shaken Public Confidence
Still, what’s the big deal? Don’t qualified reporters always take different angles on the same facts? Sure, and quite legitimately–except for when there’s a misleading social and political slant. Many GBONews readers know of this editor’s continuing exasperation at the distorted picture of Social Security’s long-term finances advanced by Wall Street interests and conservative think tanks.
Yet, in 2019, while some experts hold that the program is on its way to insolvency, a large contingent of authorities fervently disagree. That’s a debate to be reported in balance. Journalists who lead with melodramatic urgency of “bankruptcy” and “insolvency,” may as well lede with a variation on the old math-teacher’s line, in this case, “SEX! Now that I’ve got your attention, read on about Social Security.” Irresponsible? Well, at the very least, it’s lazy reporting that fails to consider how it adds needlessly to national anxiety in these anxious times.
As for the lingering public effect – for how many years, or decades, have we all heard variations on “Social Security won’t be there when I retire?” Guess what? Financial fairy tales just don’t go away. In April, the Transamerica Corporation’s Center for Retirement Studies published its 19th national survey of U.S. business employers and workers—with samples covering three generations (Boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials) regarding their attitudes toward retirement.
One finding: “77 percent of workers agree with the statement, ‘I am concerned that when I am ready to retire, Social Security will not be there for me,’ including 35 percent who ‘strongly agree’ and 42 percent who ‘somewhat agree.’ Generation X (84 percent) and Millennials (80 percent) are more likely to agree than Baby Boomers (65 percent). Generation X (42 percent) and Millennials (38 percent) are also more likely than Baby Boomers (24 percent) to ‘strongly agree.’”
The Transamerica survey also reports that four in 10 Boomers (42 percent) “are significantly more likely to expect Social Security to be their primary source of expected retirement income compared with Generation X (28 percent) and Millennials (19 percent).”
It adds, “Millennials (53 percent), and Generation X (49 percent), most frequently cite their expected primary income in retirement to be self-funded savings including 401k(s), 403(b)s, IRAs and/or other savings and investments, compared with Baby Boomers (39 percent). Furthermore, ‘working’ is more often cited by Millennials (17 percent) and Generation X (14 percent), compared with Baby Boomers (8 percent).”
Will economics writers also report on when those expectations turn to rising anxiety as the Gen Xers and Millennials figure out how limited those 401(k)s and savings will be without significant change in the U.S. retirement system? Reporters who too quickly default to the hype may well see their stories get goosed up web page by their algorithm rating, but, to real people, hype matters. The facts and a picture of their genuine prospects matter.
Wide Program Support and Public Fears
Altman’s blog went on to say that in March “the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that 68% of those identified as Republican/Lean Republican believe that Congress should make no cuts to Social Security whatsoever. A year ago, in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections, Public Policy Polling found that 56% of those who voted for Donald Trumpand 55% of those who identify as Republican would be more likely to vote for a candidate who ‘supported expanding and increasing Social Security.’”
In his analysis, Hiltzik, the LA Times’Pulitzer Prize-winning economics columnist, wrote “The crux of the conservative attack on Social Security in recent years has been the claim that the program is on an unbroken path to insolvency. Monday’s release of the Social Security trustees’ annual report knocks a pillar out from under that campaign, for it shows that the program actually got healthier during the last year.”
Hiltzik explained that the Trustees report actually lowered their estimate of how much additional payroll tax would be needed to bring the program into full actuarial balance. He emphasized that because Social Security’s long-term finances depend on many variables: “Pundits who tell you they know what’s going to happen are blowing smoke.”
He added, “That’s an argument for being very cautious about imposing irreversible costs on Social Security beneficiaries now in the name of protecting the program from expenses later. There’s no legitimate rationale for cutting benefits today because the program might be unable to pay 100% of scheduled benefits in 2035; much better to wait and see. On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons to expand Social Security to make it more relevant to and useful for today’s working Americans.”
It’s also an argument for more careful reporting that doesn’t foolishly shake the already tenuous confidence of most Americans about the future of what’s actually a solid retirement system—into the 22ndcentury. By no reasonable definition is a program (or business) going “bankrupt” or careening toward “insolvency” when its cash flow 16 years hence is projected at over 80% of its annual budget. More prudent reporting is needed on the kind of adjustment able to fill the gaps, including about opposing views in that debate and factors that have stalled federal action for long.
What isn’t contributing to the public’s need to know are unnerving distortions for an unsettled nation in these nerve-wracking times.
–Paul Kleyman
4. THE STORYBOARD
*** “Ageism: A ‘Prevalent and Insidious’ Health Threat,” by Paula Span, New York Times “New Old Age” column (April 28, and in April 30 “Science Times” print section): Subhead: “The World Health Organization has begun four studies intended to define ageism and identify ways to combat it.”
Span takes note of recent ageist ads, that “constitute mere microaggressions compared to the forms ageism often takes: pervasive employment discrimination, biased health care, media caricatures or invisibility. When internalized by older adults themselves, ageist views can lead to poorer mental and physical health.”
The story continues, “’It’s an incredibly prevalent and insidious problem,’ said Alana Officer, who leads the World Health Organization’s global campaign against ageism, which it defines as ‘stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination’ based on age. ‘It affects not only individuals, but how we think about policies.’”
Span reports that in 2016, WHO invested a half-million dollars in research: “Four teams around the world are collecting and assessing the available evidence on ageism — its causes and health consequences, how to combat it, and how best to measure it. Their work will appear in a United Nations report to be published within a year, and will culminate in international mobilization, organizers hope.”
In the United States, she writes, the research group based at Cornell University “has already completed its task, and is about to publish its study in the American Journal of Public Health. It brings surprisingly good news.”
Span explains that the U.S. team sifted “through dozens of articles, from the 1970s through last year, evaluating anti-ageism programs.” According to the study’s senior author, the distinguished gerontologist Karl Pillemer, PhD,the researchers analyzed 64 studies, most in the U.S., involving 6,124 participants, from preschoolers to young adults, to determine their effectiveness.
The story adds, “Almost universally, after such interventions, participants showed significantly less ageism on attitude tests and greater knowledge of aging than comparison groups that hadn’t taken part. The combined educational and intergenerational approach proved the most effective. ‘The message is loud and clear,’ Dr. Pillemer said. ‘Ageist attitudes don’t seem as baked in as we think. They may be relatively malleable.’”
Span goes on to cite multiple studies by Yale social psychologist Becca Levy, who leads the WHO-sponsored review of studies on health consequences, “These stereotypes can have direct impact on older people’s health and function.” Her two decades of research have shown that people with a positive view of old age tend to recover from disability sooner than those who are negative about aging.
Levy told Span, “With negative stereotypes, older people have a higher risk of dementia. . . . They have greater accumulations of plaques and tangles in the brain, the biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, and a reduced size of the hippocampus.”
Whether these kinds of revelations could affect public attitudes and policies remains in question. Span comments, “But seeing how even short-lived interventions can move the attitudinal needle, I’m encouraged to continue my personal anti-ageism campaign. (Author and activist Ashton Applewhitehas established a helpful online clearinghouse called Old School.)”
*** “54% of Middle-Income Seniors Could Need Housing, Care Help by 2029, NIC-Funded Study Finds,” by Lois A. Bowers, McKnight’s Senior Living(April 24, 2019): She reports that in the United States, more than half of the 14.4 million middle-income older adults in 2029 “will lack the financial resources to pay for senior housing and care, and a combination of public and private efforts will be needed to address the looming crisis, projects a study funded by the National Investment Center (NIC) for Seniors Housing & Care and published online . . . by Health Affairs.”
Likely the first study to examine the joint housing and healthcare needs of older adults based on income, the research explored home owners (but not the high level of renters in many urban areas), “who would be able to sell their homes and use all of their annual financial resources to pay for senior housing and care. The percentage increases to 81% if it includes middle-income older adults who would be able to keep their homes but commit the rest of their annual financial resources to cover costs associated with senior housing and care.”
The study examined those ages 75-plus included in 2014 data from the Health and Retirement Study. The report was by researchers from NORC at the University of Chicago, the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School and NIC, with support from AARP, the AARP Foundation, the John A. Hartford Foundation and the SCAN Foundation.
Bowers quotes Harvard Medical School’s David Grabowski, PhD, an author of the study: “We knew the number would be big, but I thought it was pretty staggering.”
According to the study, “This income group is generally too wealthy to qualify for public means-tested programs, yet not wealthy enough to pay the costs at many seniors housing communities for a sustained period of time.” The researchers “project and average annual cost of $62,000 for assisted living rent and other out-of-pocket medical costs a decade from now, even if they sold their homes and also committed all of their annual financial resources to pay for it.”
The article adds that 60% of older middle-income seniors “will have mobility limitations, and 20% will have high healthcare and functional needs, having at least three chronic conditions and needing help with at least one activity of daily living. Eight percent will have cognitive impairment.”
The study includes a range of potential private- and public-sector solutions. The authors also call into question the effectiveness of funding long-term care through the current patchwork of state Medicaid programs.
Bowers interviewed Bob Kramer, NIC founder and strategic adviser, an industry leader, referring to the process whereby individuals now must qualify for Medicaid: “One of the areas for exploration will be, do we continue to force people to spend down into poverty before we give them the support they need . . . ? The research would indicate that by doing that, they’re liable to be in worse health and more likely to be hospitalized or to be in higher-cost settings than if we had intervened earlier with the sort of coordinated housing setting where you’re basically able to address food issues, transportation issues and lack of social interaction and social connection issues, as well as effectively manage their chronic conditions.’”
*** “Aging In America: News And Trends From 2 Summits,” by Rich Eisenberg, PBS Next Avenue/Forbes (April 24, 2019): Eisenberg, managing editor of PBS’s Next Avenuewebsite, offers highlights of the American Society on Aging’s 2019 Aging in America Conference and the What’s Next Boomer Business Summit, both in New Orleans last month. “My goal: to learn and report on the latest news and trends concerning money, work and volunteering for boomers and Gen Xers.” He attended numerous sessions and moderated or presented at seven.
The report is extensive, and substantive, such as his section on the state of family caregiving. Presenter Lynn Friss Feinberg, senior strategic policy advisor for the AARP Public Policy Institute, explained that most of the nation’s 24 million family caregivers are workers age 50 and older.” Almost two-thirds of them care for someone 65-plus.
Feinberg stressed that the high stress of caregiving builds up because “paid family leave is not available to most workers.” The story says that “the 1993 federal Family and Medical Leave Act requires some employers to provide employees with up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave. But the leave is unpaid and the law excludes employers with fewer than 50 employees, making it available to only 60% of the workforce. It also doesn’t cover loved ones such as an in-law, an uncle or aunt, a grandparent or a niece or nephew.” The article also lists states that are variously “leading the way” and notes other related initiatives around the country.
*** “Older Americans Act [OAA] Needs Money, Support,”by Tamara Lytle, AARP Bulletin(April 11, 2019, also En español): Enacted as part of the War on Poverty in 1965, along with Medicare and Medicaid, OAA seeded what became the “aging network” of state and local programs to provide meals, protection against elder abuse, nursing home protections, senior-center support (to reduce social isolation, offer health screenings and so on), and public advocacy for older Americans, especially those more vulnerable.
Lytle reports, “Supporters say more money is needed to keep pace with the ballooning 60-plus population. Funding for the act has gone up just 1.1 percent annually, on average, since 2001, to $2.06 billion this year. ‘The changing demographics of our country are such that we have to devote more resources, become more innovative and pay more attention to issues that affect older Americans,’ says Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging.’”
*** “Time to Reauthorize the Older Americans Act” is a related and very informative blog by Wendy Fox-Grageof AARP’s Public Policy Institute (Feb. 2, 2019), who states, “If Congress does not act, this legislation, which was last reauthorized for three years, will expire on September 30.”
She highlights findings from the institute’s recent report and explains, “Older Americans Act funding has increased only 1.1 percent annually on average from FY 2001 to FY 2019 (from $1.68 billion in FY 2001 to $2.06 billion in FY 2019). When adjusting for inflation, not only have appropriations over the past 18 years failed to keep pace with population growth, they actually fell by 16 percent. If inflation and funding trends continue, the inflation-adjusted appropriation will continue to decrease to 25 percent lower than in FY 2001.
Meanwhile, Fox-Grage says, the older population has grown by 63 percent since 2001, and it will continue to skyrocket.Despite this woeful inadequacy of current funding, the Act helps 11 million older adults live as independently as possible.”
The Journalists Network on Generations (JNG), founded in 1993, publishes Generations Beat Online News (GBONews.org). JNG provides information and networking opportunities for journalists covering generational issues, but not those representing services, products or lobbying agendas. Copyright 2019 JNG. For more information contact GBO Editor Paul Kleyman.
To subscribe of unsubscribe, or if you have technical problems receiving issues of GBO or if you’d like to be removed from the list, e-mail me at paul.kleyman@earthlink.net, or pfkleyman@gmail.comor phone me at 415-821-2801.