Commentary |Trump's second assassination attempt is shocking, but attempts on presidents' lives are not rare in US history

by Shannon Bow O'Brien
    The University of Texas at Austin



Former President Donald Trump survived his second assassination attempt on Sept. 15, 2024, marking the latest chapter in a long history book. Presidential assassination attempts, whether successful or not, are fairly commonplace in American history.

There have been 45 men elected president since the country’s founding. And 40% of them have experienced known attempts on their lives. Four presidents – Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy – have been assassinated.

Image: Gerd Altmann/Pixabay
While Trump and Theodore Roosevelt were both former presidents when they were shot, Ronald Reagan was injured while in office, with a would-be assassin almost ending Reagan’s life in 1981.

Thirteen others – Andrew Jackson, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden – have had known plots or failed attempts to end their lives.

Many were subject to multiple attempts, and it is likely the public was never informed of other attempts upon them or other presidents.

Presidents symbolize the ideals of ourselves as Americans. They often act as the physical embodiment of our country, their political party and its values. When individuals are unhappy with the United States or its policies, some choose to express their opinions in violent ways. Those who choose to assassinate a president inadvertently humanize the very presidents they want to kill.



A common thread

Every presidential assassination or attempt has been made with a firearm. With the exception of Gerald Ford’s two attempted assassins, all the perpetrators have been male.

This includes Trump’s two assailants, men who were once enthralled by but seemingly grew disenchanted with aspects of modern politics.

The Secret Service thwarted an armed man hiding at a Trump golf course in Palm Beach, Florida, on Sept. 15. The Secret Service fired at the person, who fled in a car before he was apprehended and arrested.

This came just two months after Trump was wounded at a Pennsylvania rally on July 13 by a young man who attempted to kill Trump with a gunshot to the head.

Many presidential assassination attempts seem incoherent to anyone except the perpetrator.

A man named Charles Guiteau killed Garfield in 1881 because he wanted to be awarded a patronage position in government.

John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln as part of a larger plot attempting to create chaos to help reignite the “Southern cause” and support for slavery. On the same night Lincoln was killed in 1865, his secretary of state, William Seward, was attacked but survived.

At the same time, the plot was for then-Vice President Andrew Johnson to also be killed by another man, George Atzerodt, who instead got drunk and threw the knife in a gutter.

Booth and his co-conspirators hoped that these politicians’ almost simultaneous deaths would throw the Union into disarray, with an unclear path of succession. Their plan fell apart, and with Johnson alive, the nation’s clear path of presidential succession remained intact.

A near miss

Half a century later, while former President Theodore Roosevelt was campaigning for a third presidential term in 1912, he was shot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Though he was shot at almost point-blank range, Roosevelt was, in a way, saved by his poor eyesight and long-winded nature. Roosevelt had a 50-page speech folded in his pocket, as well as his steel eyeglass case. Both items slowed the bullet enough that it just entered his chest but not deeper than the muscle.

Roosevelt famously proceeded to give a 90-minute speech before leaving for the hospital.

One of the closest comparisons to Trump’s two recent assassination attempts is when two women tried to kill President Gerald Ford in September 1975.

Both Trump and Ford were the targets of well-publicized assassination attempts within a short period of time, and both were targeted by individuals with logically unclear motives.

Lynnette “Squeaky” Fromme, a one-time member of the Manson family, a well-known cult in the 1970s, attempted to kill Ford in order, she claimed, to save California redwood trees.

At the time, the Environmental Protection Agency was warning people about worsening smog’s effects on the environment, leading her to believe assassination was the only way to preserve the trees. Fromme dressed entirely in red, went to Sacramento where the president was visiting, aimed and fired at him within a 2-foot range.

Except the gun didn’t fire.

Bystanders heard a click, since she had not put a round in the chamber, likely because she did not know much about guns. After that first attempted shot, Secret Service intervened. Later, Fromme claimed she did not want to shoot the president.

Seventeen days later, on Sept. 22 in San Francisco, Sara Jane Moore shot at Ford from about 40 feet away and missed. Her second shot missed as well, this time because a bystander, Oliver Sipple, grabbed the gun, forcing the shot to go wide, injuring a taxi driver.

Finally, Reagan survived an assassination attempt by John Hinckley Jr. on March 30, 1981. Hinckley was obsessed with the popular film “Taxi Driver” and, in particular, the character played by actress Jodie Foster.

He believed that if he could impress Foster, she would date him. As Reagan left the Washington Hilton hotel, Hinckley fired six shots in two seconds. One shot deflected off the car and into the president’s left side, hitting his lung. One of the funnier lines Reagan would later repeat was born that day, when he looked at doctors prepping for surgery and said, “I just hope you’re Republicans.” One doctor replied, “Today, Mr. President, we’re all Republicans.”

The best and worst of us

Throughout history, American presidents and occasionally candidates have been targeted by gunmen and other potential attackers to express their unhappiness about the government. The rationales for these assassins’ actions vary from simply chaos to delusions anointing the assassin, or would-be assassin, a heroic main character.

Presidential assassinations reflect the best and the worst of people simultaneously. The violence itself shows the worst of society, but Americans often seem at their best in the aftermath. Like Reagan’s surgeons once recognized, politics should never supplant humanity or be more valued than a person’s health and safety.The Conversation


Shannon Bow O'Brien, Associate Professor of Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


History of third-party votes in US presidential elections

STACKER - As Election Day rapidly approaches, the presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump is in a dead heat. National polls as of early September show Harris at least 3 percentage points above Trump. As of Sept. 11, Harris leads Trump in three of the seven battleground states, giving Harris the advantage to win the election. Trump must secure a few more to solidify his path to 270 electoral votes.

Three independent and third-party candidates remain in the race, as well: Justice for All candidate Cornel West, polling at less than 1% nationally; Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, with just over 1% support; and third-time Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who is fending off ballot challenges from the Democratic Party and accusations that her campaign is a vote spoiler, polling at about 1% as of late August.

Third-party candidates have appeared throughout the history of American politics, though most have been unable to challenge the dominance of the two-party system in a meaningful way. Stacker examined data from the Federal Election Commission, Pew Research Center, and other sources to explore the history of third-party candidates in U.S. presidential elections.

In 1892, Populist Party candidate James B. Weaver, fueled by farmers' discontent, captured about 9% of the vote, demonstrating the potential of third-party movements.

Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" campaign in 1912 saw a former president defect from his party. Having just lost the Republican nomination to incumbent William Howard Taft, Roosevelt led the progressive faction of the party to form a new one and run in the general election. While he ultimately failed to win, he took about 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes with him: the largest share of any third-party presidential campaign in American history. The split in Republican votes helped deliver victory to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Since then, many third parties have vied for the presidency. None have exceeded Roosevelt's percentage of votes in 1912.

The mid-20th century saw the emergence of parties rooted in regional and ideological divides. George Wallace's segregationist American Independent Party captured 13.5% of the vote in 1968, while Ross Perot's 1992 Independent run, driven by economic concerns, earned 19%.

More recently, foreign influence has added a new layer to third-party dynamics. Russia has been accused of using election interference tactics to support third-party candidates as a means of weakening major party contenders. Russian operatives during the 2016 election cycle attempted to boost Green Party candidate Jill Stein through social media campaigns and misinformation efforts, aiming to siphon votes from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, according to reports released by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

During the 2024 election cycle, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. challenged President Joe Biden in the Democratic primary but eventually withdrew from the contest to campaign as an Independent in the general election. Just before Biden himself dropped out of the race on July 21, Kennedy was polling in the double digits in some national polls.

Once Vice President Kamala Harris replaced Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, Kennedy's support plummeted. By the time he dropped out on Aug. 23 and endorsed former President Donald Trump, Kennedy was polling as low as 5%.

people voting
Photo: Quang Vu Ngoc/Pixabay

Before the presidential race reset after Biden dropped out and Harris accepted the Democratic nomination, Trump was up 3.2 percentage points. By July 24, the race between the Democratic and Republican nominees was neck and neck, with Harris and Trump essentially tied and Kennedy at 5.2%, according to national polling averages tabulated by ABC News.

The momentum continued to build for the new Harris ticket while Trump slumped and Kennedy faded. By the last night of the DNC, Harris had risen to 47.2%, Trump was down to 43.6%, and Kennedy—who dropped out the following day—was down to 4.7%.

Third-party candidates face an uphill battle

Most third-party candidates in the last 40 years have been unable to muster more than 5% of the popular vote. In 1992 and 1996, Independent candidate Ross Perot bucked the trend and got 18.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

A billionaire tech entrepreneur, Perot took his fiscally conservative and socially moderate message directly to viewers in extended infomercials he purchased on major TV networks. His straight-talking and pragmatic style, often illustrated with charts, appealed to middle-class voters. After getting nearly 19% of the popular vote in his first run (although with no electoral votes), he met the threshold to qualify for federal funding when he ran again in 1996.

Requirements for appearing on state ballots and meeting the thresholds for participation in nationally televised presidential debates represent massive hurdles for candidates operating outside the dominant two-party system. Strategic voting appeals by major parties and relentless media scrutiny also contribute to an overall dropoff in third-party support.

While third-party bids from the likes of Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura in 1998 (as Minnesota governor) and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000 found varying degrees of success, the campaigns struggled to sustain momentum as Election Day approached. In Nader's case, however, his 97,000 votes in Florida were enough for Democrats to blame him for Bush's official victory there. Bush's razor-thin margin in that state was enough to make him president amid a recount halted by the Supreme Court.

Calls to expand beyond the two-party system grow

Despite the lack of support in national polls, many Americans look favorably upon the idea of having more political parties. Over a third want more parties to choose from, per Pew, while voter dissatisfaction with the current political status quo is at a three-decade high.

Still, third-party candidates face a difficult climb to get on the ballot, often requiring thousands of signatures and navigating complex state rules. Many have argued that voting third-party only serves to "waste" votes and potentially spoil a race. But FEC guidelines grant candidates partial public funding if a candidate gets at least 5% of the national vote, which could set them up for stronger future runs.

Some critics argue that the entrenched two-party system stifles competition and voter choice and is rigged in favor of the governing parties, fueling growing calls to reform or even abolish it in favor of a more inclusive, multiparty democracy.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington cautioned against the rise of political parties and factionalism that could "become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government."

Whether that problem should be addressed by more parties—or fewer—is for voters to decide at the ballot box.


Story editing by Tim Bruns. Additional editing by Nicole Caldwell. Copy editing by Kristen Wegrzyn. 

This article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.


Commentary |
Mass deportations would be a nightmare for America

by Alliyah Lusuegro
OtherWords.org

There’s an image that’s stayed with me for weeks: A sea of people holding up “Mass Deportation Now” signs at the Republican National Convention.

Since then, I’ve been plagued with nightmares of mass raids by the military and police across the country. I see millions of families being torn apart, including families with citizen children. And I see DACA recipients — like me — carried away from the only life we’ve ever known.

Mass deportation wasn’t just a rallying cry at the GOP convention. It’s a key plank of Project 2025, a radical document written by white nationalists listing conservative policy priorities for the next administration.

And it would be a disaster — not just for immigrants, but for our whole country.

I moved to the United States when I was six. Until my teenage years, I didn’t know I was undocumented — I only knew I was from the Philippines. I grew up in Chicago with my twin brother. Our parents worked hard, volunteered at my elementary school, and ensured we always had food on the table. They raised us to do well and be good people.

But when my twin and I learned that we were undocumented, we realized that living our dreams was going to be complicated — on top of the lasting fear of being deported.

Everything changed right before I entered high school in 2012: The Obama administration announced the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA. The program was designed to protect young people like my twin and me who arrived in the U.S. at a young age with limited or no knowledge of our life before. We’re two of the 600,000 DACA recipients today.

DACA opened many doors for us. It’s allowed us to drive, attend college, and have jobs. And we’re temporarily exempt from deportation, a status we have to renew every two years.

DACA helped me set my sights high on my studies and career. Although I couldn’t apply for federal aid, with DACA I became eligible for a program called QuestBridge that granted me a full-ride scholarship to college. Today I work in public policy in the nation’s capital, with dreams of furthering my career through graduate school.

But if hardliners eliminate DACA and carry out their mass deportations, those dreams could be swept away. And it would be ugly — mass deportation would be a logistical disaster, taking decades and costing billions.

Imagine your friends, neighbors, colleagues, peers, and caretakers being dragged away from their homes. For me, it would mean being forced back to the Philippines, a place I haven’t seen in two decades. My partner, my friends, my work — all I’ve ever known is here, in the country I call home.

This country would suffer, too.

An estimated 11 million undocumented people live here. We’re doctors, chefs, librarians, construction workers, lawyers, drivers, scientists, and business owners. We fill labor shortages and help keep inflation down. We contribute nearly $100 billion each year to federal, state, and local taxes.

Fear-mongering politicians want you to believe we’re criminals, or that we’re voting illegally. But again and again, studies find that immigrants commit many fewer crimes than U.S.-born Americans. And though some of us have been long-time residents of this country, we cannot vote in state or federal elections.

Despite all the divisive rhetoric, the American people agree with immigration advocates: Our country needs to offer immigrants a path to legalization and citizenship. According to a Gallup poll last year, 68 percent of Americans support this.

My dark dreams of mass deportations are, thankfully, just nightmares for now. And my dreams of a secure future for my family and all people in this country outweigh my fears. We must do everything possible to keep all families together.



Alliyah Lusuegro is the Outreach Coordinator for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.


League of Women's Voters to discuss recent SCOTUS decision on Social Media Censorship

CHICAGO - Does the First Amendment allow U.S. government officials to intervene and prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media?

Jill Wine-Banks, a distinguished attorney and MSNBC Legal Analyst known for her prominence in political and legal discourse, is scheduled to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent action on social media censorship. This virtual event will take place on Tuesday, August 20, at 7 p.m. via Zoom. The program is free and is presented by the League of Women Voters of Illinois’ Mis/Disinformation Task Force.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to rule on this question. Instead, they declined to issue decisions in two cases, punting them back to officials in Texas and Florida.

Among her many accomplishments, Wine-Banks was named General Counsel of the U.S. Army by President Carter, where she supervised what was, in essence, the world's largest law firm.

She started her legal career as the first woman to serve as an organized crime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Four years later, she was selected to be one of the three Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutors in the obstruction of justice trial against President Nixon's top aides. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the evidence presented led to Nixon’s resignation.

In 2014, she was named by the Secretary of Defense to the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s Subcommittee on Sexual Assault in the military, where she served until 2017. She was also the first woman to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Bar Association.

Those who wish to join the online talk can register for the event here.

To tackle the concerning increase in misinformation and disinformation, particularly its impact on our elections, the League of Women Voters of Illinois established the Mis/Disinformation Task Force in January 2024. The goal of the task force is to educate the public about misinformation and disinformation. For more information, please visit lwvil.org/misdis-info.

Commentary |

Our tax code reward corporate price gouging. Next year, we can change that.

by Rakeen Mabud
OtherWords.org

Rakeen Mabud
Next year, we’ll have to make one of the most important decisions about the future of our economy. Will we hand more power and wealth to big corporations and the rich — or invest in a healthy and resilient economy that works for all of us?

In 2017, Republican lawmakers passed tax loopholes and cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy and big corporations. President Trump signed these giveaways into law, spiking inequality and setting off a wave of corporate profiteering.

Next year, parts of that law will begin to expire, which gives us the opportunity to make changes.

For decades, both parties have created an economy where big corporations and the wealthy aren’t pitching in like the rest of us. We’ve been sold a bill of goods known as “trickle down” economics. Trickle down goes like this: Feed the rich the best cut of meat and maybe we’ll get a bit of gristle that falls on the floor — and we’ll thank them for it.

The rich and most profitable corporations aren’t just contributing less and less to our collective coffers. They’re using their power to enrich themselves further while more of us struggle. Senator Elizabeth Warren recently described this as a “doom loop” for our tax code: the wealthy and corporations get richer from tax giveaways and then use their wealth and power to boost their profits — and then lobby for more tax cuts.

For example, the 2017 Trump tax cuts dropped the top corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent (compared to 40 percent in 1987). Supporters argued this would lead to better wages and supercharge economic growth. Instead, economic growth continued at about the same pace as before the tax breaks. And while 90 percent of workers did not see a raise, billionaire wealth has doubled.

In the same period in which corporations have enjoyed lower taxes, they’ve also raked in record profits. As my colleagues at Groundwork Collaborative have highlighted, lowering corporate tax rates actually incentivized corporate profiteering in the wake of the pandemic, as companies that overcharged us got to keep more of their winnings.

Viewpoints
Trickle down theory says these windfall profits and lower taxes should encourage companies to invest more in workers and innovation. But in an economy run by big corporations with enormous market share, that money ends up being funneled to shareholders instead of increasing worker wages, investing in new or more productive technologies, or holding critical inventories in case of a crisis.

If we want corporations to invest more in wages and productive investments, we should raise their taxes, since wages and research are mostly tax deductible.

In other words, corporate profiteering is not a foregone conclusion. Raising corporate taxes has the potential to boost investment, productivity, and economic growth — and get Americans some of their money back.

The Biden administration has taken critical steps to push back against failed trickle down economics and corporate profiteering. It capped the price of essential drugs like insulin, empowered regulators to go after corporations abusing their market power, and made historic investments in a green future. But more can be done by raising taxes on the largest, most profitable corporations.

Fundamentally, the coming tax debate is about who holds the reins in shaping our economy: megacorporations and their wealthy shareholders, or the everyday people who keep the economy humming. Next year is an opportunity for Congress to stand firm against the rich and powerful and build the economy that we want to see.


Biden administration sets higher staffing mandates for nursing homes

Here is the problem most nursing homes don’t meet them.
by Jordan Rau
KFF Health News

The Biden administration finalized nursing home staffing rules Monday that will require thousands of them to hire more nurses and aides — while giving them years to do so.

The new rules from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are the most substantial changes to federal oversight of the nation’s roughly 15,000 nursing homes in more than three decades. But they are less stringent than what patient advocates said was needed to provide high-quality care.

Image by Alexa from Pixabay

Spurred by disproportionate deaths from covid-19 in long-term care facilities, the rules aim to address perennially sparse staffing that can be a root cause of missed diagnoses, severe bedsores, and frequent falls.

“For residents, this will mean more staff, which means fewer ER visits potentially, more independence,” Vice President Kamala Harris said while meeting with nursing home workers in La Crosse, Wisconsin. “For families, it’s going to mean peace of mind in terms of your loved one being taken care of.”

When the regulations are fully enacted, 4 in 5 homes will need to augment their payrolls, CMS estimated. But the new standards are likely to require slight if any improvements for many of the 1.2 million residents in facilities that are already quite close to or meet the minimum levels.

“Historically, this is a big deal, and we’re glad we have now established a floor,” Blanca Castro, California’s long-term care ombudsman, said in an interview. “From here we can go upward, recognizing there will be a lot of complaints about where we are going to get more people to fill these positions.”

The rules primarily address staffing levels for three types of nursing home workers. Registered nurses, or RNs, are the most skilled and responsible for guiding overall care and setting treatment plans. Licensed practical nurses, sometimes called licensed vocational nurses, work under the direction of RNs and perform routine medical care such as taking vital signs. Certified nursing assistants are supposed to be the most plentiful and help residents with daily activities like going to the bathroom, getting dressed, and eating.

While the industry has increased wages by 27% since February 2020, homes say they are still struggling to compete against better-paying work for nurses at hospitals and at retail shops and restaurants for aides. On average, nursing home RNs earn $40 an hour, licensed practical nurses make $31 an hour, and nursing assistants are paid $19 an hour, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CMS estimated the rules will ultimately cost $6 billion annually, but the plan omits any more payments from Medicare or Medicaid, the public insurers that cover most residents’ stays — meaning additional wages would have to come out of owners’ pockets or existing facility budgets.

The American Health Care Association, which represents the nursing home industry, called the regulation “an unreasonable standard” that “creates an impossible task for providers” amid a persistent worker shortage nationwide.

“This unfunded mandate doesn’t magically solve the nursing crisis,” the association’s CEO, Mark Parkinson, said in a statement. Parkinson said the industry will keep pressing Congress to overturn the regulation.

Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, a New York City-based advocacy nonprofit, said “it is hard to call this a win for nursing home residents and families” given that the minimum levels were below what studies have found to be ideal.

The plan was welcomed by labor unions that represent nurses — and whom President Joe Biden is counting on for support in his reelection campaign. Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry called it a “long-overdue sea change.” This political bond was underscored by the administration’s decision to have Harris announce the rule with SEIU members in Wisconsin, a swing state.

nurse with patient
Photo: PEXELS/Anna Shvets

The new rules supplant the vague federal mandate that has been in place since the 1980s requiring nursing homes to have “sufficient” staffing to meet residents’ needs. In practice, inspectors rarely categorized inadequate staffing as a serious infraction resulting in possible penalties, federal records show.

Starting in two years, most homes must provide an average of at least 3.48 hours of daily care per resident. About 6 in 10 nursing homes are already operating at that level, a KFF analysis found.

The rules give homes breathing room before they must comply with more specific requirements. Within three years, most nursing homes will need to provide daily RN care of at least 0.55 hours per resident and 2.45 hours from aides.

CMS also mandated that within two years an RN must be on duty at all times in case of a patient crisis on weekends or overnight. Currently, CMS requires at least eight consecutive hours of RN presence each day and a licensed nurse of any level on duty around the clock. An inspector general report found that nearly a thousand nursing homes didn’t meet those basic requirements.

Nursing homes in rural areas will have longer to staff up. Within three years, they must meet the overall staffing numbers and the round-the-clock RN requirement. CMS’ rule said rural homes have four years to achieve the RN and nurse aide thresholds, although there was some confusion within CMS, as its press materials said rural homes would have five years.

Under the new rules, the average nursing home, which has around 100 residents, would need to have at least two RNs working each day, and at least 10 or 11 nurse aides, the administration said. Homes could meet the overall requirements through two more workers, who could be RNs, vocational nurses, or aides.

Homes can get a hardship exemption from the minimums if they are in regions with low populations of nurses or aides and demonstrate good-faith efforts to recruit.

Democrats praised the rules, though some said the administration did not go nearly far enough. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said the changes were “modest improvements” but that “much more is needed to ensure sufficient care and resident safety.” A Republican senator from Nebraska, Deb Fischer, said the rule would “devastate nursing homes across the country and worsen the staffing shortages we are already facing.”

Advocates for nursing home residents have been pressing CMS for years to adopt a higher standard than what it ultimately settled on. A CMS-commissioned study in 2001 found that the quality of care improved with increases of staff up to a level of 4.1 hours per resident per day — nearly a fifth higher than what CMS will require. The consultants CMS hired in preparing its new rules did not incorporate the earlier findings in their evaluation of options.

CMS said the levels it endorsed were more financially feasible for homes, but that assertion didn’t quiet the ongoing battle about how many people are willing to work in homes at current wages and how financially strained homes owners actually are.

“If states do not increase Medicaid payments to nursing homes, facilities are going to close,” said John Bowblis, an economics professor and research fellow with the Scripps Gerontology Center at Miami University. “There aren’t enough workers and there are shortages everywhere. When you have a 3% to 4% unemployment rate, where are you going to get people to work in nursing homes?”

Researchers, however, have been skeptical that all nursing homes are as broke as the industry claims or as their books show. A study published in March by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that 63% of profits were secretly siphoned to owners through inflated rents and other fees paid to other companies owned by the nursing homes’ investors.

Charlene Harrington, a professor emeritus at the nursing school of the University of California-San Francisco, said: “In their unchecked quest for profits, the nursing home industry has created its own problems by not paying adequate wages and benefits and setting heavy nursing workloads that cause neglect and harm to residents and create an unsatisfactory and stressful work environment.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.