Leading Seniors Groups Call on AARP to Oppose Cuts to Social Security

[Better Believe It]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2011
CONTACT: Strengthen Social Security Campaign

Leading Seniors Groups Call on AARP to Oppose Cuts to Social Security

WASHINGTON - June 17 - Leaders from some of the nation’s most powerful groups representing seniors, including the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, the Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA), the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) and the Older Women’s League (OWL), today strongly criticized AARP for being willing to support cuts to Social Security benefits, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Strengthen Social Security Campaign Directors Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson, NCPSSM Acting CEO Max Richtman, ARA Executive Director Ed Coyle and OWL Executive Director Bobbie Brinegar made the following statements, which are excepted below and available to listen to here:

Eric Kingson, Co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign: “Given the economic challenges facing today’s older people, we should focus on how inadequate the nation’s retirement income system is to deal with the very serious risks confronting them. Instead of seeming to position itself as a reasonable inside deal maker that is open to benefit cuts, AARP should be educating about the need to selectively improve Social Security – the one economic security institution that works quite well.

Max Richtman, Acting CEO of NCPSSM: “While AARP is among the nation’s largest lobbyists, it clearly does not speak for all of America’s seniors. Seniors of all political persuasions, and even voters across all age groups, do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Offering up Social Security benefit cuts to gain access to closed- door discussions, where Let’s Make a Deal politics has become the norm, is not the way to address strengthening a program that touches the lives of virtually every American family.

ARA Executive Director Ed Coyle: “Our members hope that AARP will directly answer some basic questions. Do you support any cuts in benefits? Do you support raising the retirement age? Do you support means testing? These are questions that any senior’s organization ought to be prepared to answer directly.”

Bobbie Brinegar, Executive Director of OWL: “The Voice of Midlife and Older Women sincerely hopes that the Wall Street Journal’s depiction of what AARP is undertaking regarding Social Security was off base. Surely AARP would not want to disrespect their members’ wishes.”

Nancy Altman, Co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign: “Americans are overwhelmingly united in their position on Social Security…Politicians who think they can take cover through elite groups in Washington do so at their peril.”

###
The Strengthen Social Security Campaign is comprised of more than 300 national and state organizations representing more than 50 million Americans from many of the nation’s leading aging, labor, disability, women’s, children, consumer, civil rights and equality organizations.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/06/17-4

[defendandprotect]

1. "Call on AARP" ... ??? It's an insurance company -- !!

[movonne]

8. I read a few days ago that they said that they did not change their

views on social security...I was out of town for a few days and might have missed something..

[madfloridian]

16. They simply said they had always had those views.

They really did not deny they were open to cuts in SS

[Better Believe It]

2. AARP: Lobbying Group for Seniors or Insurance Company?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2011
AARP: Lobbying Group for Seniors or Insurance Company?

WASHINGTON - June 17 - The Wall Street Journal reports today: “AARP, the powerful lobbying group for older Americans, is dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits, a move that could rock Washington’s debate over how to revamp the nation’s entitlement programs.”

DOUG HENWOOD, dhenwood at panix.com
Editor of Left Business Observer, Henwood said today: “The news that AARP will now support cuts to Social Security reads like a sign that this former lobby for the interest of older Americans has now transformed itself completely into an insurance company. Surely they can’t be persuaded by the merits of the arguments, since the alleged Social Security crisis is a phantom that can’t survive a serious round of fact-checking.” See Henwood’s pieces on Social Security here.

MAX RICHTMAN, PAMELA TAINTER CAUSEY, causeyp at ncpssm.org
Richtman is the executive vice president and acting CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security; Causey is communications director for the group.

DEAN BAKER, via Alan Barber, barber at cepr.net
Available for a limited number of interviews, Baker is author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He said today: “AARP has consistently exercised poor judgment in pushing the interests of senior citizens. Back in the mid-90s’ debate over changing the cost of living adjustment for Social Security, AARP’s policy director John Rother publicly asserted that the consumer price index overstated the true rate of inflation by 0.5 percentage points, implying that a reduction in the annual adjustment of this amount would be acceptable.

“Fortunately, people with more knowledge of the index carried the day. The only change to the adjustment came from changes in the CPI itself, which lowered the measured rate of inflation by 0.2-0.3 percentage points.

“It doesn’t appear that the judgments of Mr. Rother or the AARP have improved over the last 15 years.” Baker also co-wrote the book Social Security: The Phony Crisis and regularly blogs at “Beat the Press.”

VIRGINIA RENO, vreno at nasi.org
Vice president for income security policy for the National Academy of Social Insurance, Reno just wrote “Case Against Cutting Social Security” for IPA’s blog.

###
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.

http://www.accuracy.org/

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. AARP is not supporting cuts to Social Security

This is one of the strangest rumors.

[Better Believe It]

4. Sure. That's why respected senior organizations are criticizing the AARP

Thanks for the info.

Is it also a false and "strange rumor" that Republicans and some Democrats want to cut social security benefits?

[still_one]

5. It isn't a rumor, and their clarification was that they only opposed cuts in social security to

balance the budget.

Their standing policy is that in order to keep Social Security solvent, they would be open to anything including cuts and raising the age

Just go to google, type AARP social security cuts, and you will see exactly where the leadership of AARP stands

That is definitely NOT where the members are coming from

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. Raising the age for social security

It seems that even some Democratic lawmakers are open to it. There was a Democratic representative on the Cenk Uygur show yesterday who kept bringing up the idea that since life expectancy is now greater than before, that it might be okay to raise the age.

What I don't get in that argument (that I see being made over and over again without a strong challenge) is that it would take a medical doctor or biologist to verify this fact, in my opinion. While it's true that people are living longer than before, has science been able to increase the age of productivity? They may have been able to statistically increase life expectancy by curing a lot of childhood diseases or end all-out global wars, but has science been able to solve aging at all? Doctors might be able to keep old people alive longer, on dialysis machines, heart and lung machines, or by transplanting organs, but does this mean that a 65 year old of today is any younger than a 65 year old was on the day social security was first begun? If we eventually are able to keep people alive to the age of 100, does this mean that we've made them younger and more productive later into their lives, or have we merely discovered ways in which science can keep them on the edge of life-or-death for more and more years? I'm not a scientist and I don't know. But it seems to me that those who are pushing the "life expectancy" argument aren't being challenged on scientific grounds which is to me the crux of the argument.

[customerserviceguy]

9. On the average

it's easier to be productive at a job at 65 in 2011, than it was to have the average job in 1935. Lots less physical labor today, again, on average.

That's been one of my proposals, use worker's comp figures to rate jobs on a five point scale. The toughest jobs shouldn't have to wait until 67 for full benefits, they should get it at 65, and pencil pushers like me who sit at a desk might have to wait until 70. As we move even more fully to a service economy, that would naturally raise the age of the average retiree.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Sounding pretty youthful there.

You do not push pencils, you do repetitive key borad work, if you are like most. Good luck doing that until 70. Seriously, good luck. What was the 'average job' in 35? How many of those 'average jobs' still exist and are done by those who are not you. Or me. You make it sound like all the workers became Prince of Wales sometime beteen 35 and today. And all without a shred of statistic or support.
Of course, a good PBX operator will always have a job, right? As long as they want to work, the work will always want them back. Bon chance!

[customerserviceguy]

12. Well, I'm 55

and I have done some truly hard physical work in my life, 4-5 years ago, I worked the night shift in a semiconductor factory. We were on our feet the whole 12 hour shift, practically, and there was a lot of lifting and bending to do. Also, you had to do it in an airtight cleanroom gown that held in not only every stray hair and skin particle, but most of your sweat, too. I guess being able to sit at a desk and talk to customers for an eight hour shift seems easy after that.

No, I didn't cite any statistics, but it seems to be common sense that there were a lot of backbreaking jobs 75 years ago, when you compare the work that is done today with all kinds of mechanical help. I would imagine that a lot of the really tough manufacturing jobs have simply been outsourced in that time, as well.

I certainly acknowledge that there are people doing some really tough jobs where they have to stand on their feet for an entire shift, and lift heavy weights frequently. I'd like to see them be able to retire at 65 with full Social Security rather than have to wait for 67 for it. If that means that workers are treated unequally at retirement time, how is that any different from how workers are treated during their working lives? The folks who have physically less demanding jobs often have the ability to salt a little more away for an earlier retirement than the people who are doing the very toughest jobs in our society.

[Better Believe It]

14. We need to cut the full retirement age to 60. We can afford it. Just take the CAP off.

That would free up millions of jobs for younger people and enable more people to enjoy a fuller and longer retirement life.

Why should working people have to work for almost 50 years before they can even collect full social security while the top 1% live a life of luxury in early retirement on the backs of working people?

[customerserviceguy]

17. I keep seeing that as a solution

But nobody's ever shown me any figures. I'd like to see something along the lines of "There are X million people over the cap right now, who would be paying an extra Y billion dollars in taxes per year if we raised the cap to Z dollars. When you match that with their employers's shares, that generates this much money, which would make up for the retirements of this many baby boomers."

Even then, I'd say that we'd have to change the formula for the maximum benefit. Those high earners, who will be paying more taxes, will be eligible for higher Social Security benefits, which will offset some of the extra taxes they pay. My solution is, yes, raise the cap, but don't do it so much that you dramatically increase the maximum benefit, but only do that on the employee's share. On the employer's share, make the sky the limit. If some megabank wants to pay its CEO ten million bucks to run the thing into the ground, then they can afford to pay 6.2 percent of that ten mil, just like they now pay 1.45 of that sum for Medicare tax.

Also, if you made the full retirement age at even 65 again (I just don't think 60 is do-able, especially with the national debt we have already), would you get rid of the provision that allows a person to collect even more if they defer retirement from their present retirement age to age 70? If you did lower the retirement age, and keep this provision, a lot of folks would just keep working longer to build up their benefit, as many do today.

If you're talking about mandatory retirement at any age, then we're not talking about preserving freedom here. My Uncle Joe still works one day a week as a pharmacist, and he's 87, and sharp as a tack. I would imagine that someone telling him he couldn't work would get his ire up just as much as when he stormed the beach at Normandy on D-Day.

[still_one]

13. That isn't the problem, the problem is that Congress has been borrowing money from the Social

Security Trust Fund, which was why Al Gore said he would insure a lock box so it could NOT be touched for any other purpose.

Of course the corporate media made fun of him, and the illiterates in this country didn't comprehend what he was saying

[fredamae]

10. If it's a "rumor" then why have all these

orgs/groups reacted? I am guessing they are smart enough to verify before formally responding?

[PATRICK]

6. Years ago

the AARP began to morph, maybe in the membership but certainly at the top. When people like Norquist invade the top strata of the NRA they don't have to do much except deflect any real solution to crime and terrorism issues while veering toward the far right total agenda. When infiltrating Reagan people and the usual suspects into other advocacy groups(and probably the infamous DLC) where their ideology is a gruesome fit at best based on the most selfish aspects and money ops there is a severe price in goal integrity that must be paid somewhere. The first goal becomes always support of the current crap. Even the members and their simplest goals get thrown under the bus. Teachers' unions the same or any group.

The insurance conflict of interest involves a lot of orgs, unions, etc. but I think the names of the turds at the top are of some importance as well. Personally, I think the entire leadership strata of the world is dangerously ill suited to the present, to put it in the gentlest conceivable terms. Specifically there are many many wolves in corporate board clothing. Maybe wolf-skin IS the natural uniform of the managing class now. It certainly is not in hiding. Too many people belong to groups where the top does not represent them as they presume. In other cases it is misguided or corrupted or strategically used and abused. The membership getting pissed and then disappeared down the MSM media hole is not enough.

The used to tar and feather people who defrauded or betrayed the community. Now it is the puzzled and frustrated people who find themselves covered with tar and feathers, broke, in the streets, and no jobs, and no nation except a cruel slave farm joke.

[spanone]

15. if anyone needs to call on aarp to oppose ss cuts, they are not advocates for seniors...period

they will not receive a penny of my funds