9
AARP waffles on Social Security cuts
Social Security supporters attend a rally in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Kai Ryssdal: There was an item in the Wall Street Journal today that wasn't so much a news story as it was a revelation. The paper said the influential lobbying group for seniors -- AARP -- is "dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits." That sentence was widely welcomed as a sign the ice might be breaking in the tough debate over entitlement cuts in Washington.
Until -- just a few hours after the story appeared -- AARP did what you might call a partial backpedal. Be that as it may, our senior business correspondent Bob Moon explains there's now some buzz that Washington might finally be ready to talk about the future of Social Security.
Bob Moon: As if to soften the glare of a suddenly hot spotlight, AARP issued a statement calling the story "inaccurate," and declaring in a bold headline: "AARP has not changed its position on Social Security."
But when we pressed the question, the group's legislative policy chief David Certner seemed to leave the door open to "debating" possible cuts.
David Certner: We know that benefit cuts will be on the table as part of a package. Our preference is to maintain the Social Security benefits; others have different opinions and would prefer to cut Social Security much deeper. We need to have that debate, but not just with us, but with the American public.
The distinction the group seemed to draw today was that it doesn't want lawmakers relying on such cuts in the debate over slashing the deficit. Certner insists Social Security is a separate program.
Certner: It's financed separately. It should not be cut to deal with a budget deficit it didn't cause.
But some experts pointed out that's a distinction without much meaning. Erskine Bowles co-chaired President Obama's special commission on the deficit. He says separate debate or not, cutting Social Security benefits will result in less red ink. He thinks the AARP is trying to gracefully position itself for a seat at the table because it knows that cutting is inevitable.
Erskine Bowles: It's a big move because seniors trust them, and when AARP says that, you know, this is OK, this makes sense, then it makes it easier for politicians to make those difficult choices.
Today, the group seemed to be locked in a delicate dance between political reality and the worries of its members. Bowles suggests it's just the latest group in Washington that's ever so slowly coming to terms with the painful future.
Bowles: Look, I think you'll see people pull forward, pull back. This is not an easy thing to do, but it is reality -- it's what we have to do.
I'm Bob Moon for Marketplace.
AARP is a very wasteful and deceptive outfit. Over the past five years, for example, I have received hundreds of unsolicited promotional mailings offering membership, even though I send them a letter telling them to stop doing so. Further, the auto insurance they sold me turned out to be more expensive than what non-senior organizations offer. I have concluded that AARP is run by con men. Its marketing must be handled by an idiot.
"The lobbying group for older Americans is reported to be open to reducing Social Security benefits, but then backtracks amid a political firestorm."
The AARP wouldn't have done this had they not looked at the numbers and understood that the current system is unsustainable. There are many good seniors who are reasonable and willing to make adjustments. There are just as many seniors who behave like pigs at a trough, unwilling to let anyone else have a mouthful of food. The statistical truth is that there are too many baby boomers to be supported in the accustomed style by the present generation. As a young person who is currently paying into the system, I tell you that two can play at that game. If the baby boomers are unwilling to give an inch out of a sense of fairness, then my generation will eventually realize that it is more profitable to quit their jobs and live off food stamps and welfare. Then we can all sit back and wait for the economy to collapse. When you look at the large number of young people currently on food stamps and welfare, I tend to believe that we are already approaching that point.
I for one would like to get the money paid to the government by myself and my husband for many years including the interest. Maybe our president and some of his staff could keep Air Force One on the ground more often and save some of our money. We are not being supported by the government we support the government get that straight you great leaders in DC or prepare to leave your comfortable positions and get a real job. We the people are no longer standing idle while you enjoy the benefits of our hard labor.
This article assumes that the Wall Street Journal article gave a fair and accurate depiction of AARP's position. Considering the source of the WJS and the political drive from the right to take money from Social Security, it's wise to take this "revelation" with a grain of salt.
the Social Security crisis is way overstated. S.S. is not in the kind of trouble that this article assumes. But if anyone on "public" radio were t say that the corporate sponsors would threaten to pull underwriting. So much for "independence" and "integrity' on ostensibly public radio.
I think it is a crying shame that the rich are getting richer off the middle class and the poor now the politicians are taking food out of the mouth of our senior citizens.Why don't you take the 54,000.00 that weiner is going to getpension and put it in to social security.
When we will be conscious enough to stop calling old programs by cliché’d new ‘branding’ names- -intended to change their social effects = i.e. "entitlements" is a derogatory way of saying people are demanding to be “entitled†vs. having CONTRIBUTED for years and years ….and accepted a prior GOVT PROMISE FOR THAT BORROWING OF TAXED [forced not a real choice ] MONIES – then to be re-compensated, if one lives long enough to collect back.
Social Security is a program that has collected from us all our working years, then lent it's trust fund to other govt uses… and then is called poorer than it actually is. Then IRA's are proposed as a solution to repaying the Social Contract with SS adds to the declining ability of elders to support themselves independently - if at all possible. And elders lose thru the machinations of greedy Wall St gamblers on stock bond mkts too. What a way to trust or rather DISTRUST the old motto "save some, spend some, dont be foolish". It doesnt pay to save thru any govt programs if they shift it when the govt represenataives and govt selected administrators want to TAKE those saved MONIES for other spending choices of their own, not in our individual interests at all.
That the richer-earners may receive less Soc Security sounds like the tax code of supposedly asking more from those who have more and giving it to those who have less. But that is not what will happen !!!
Once Again. The money will go elsewhere, once again.... so the new entrants into Social Security
- hoping to collect what they have lent, contributed, been promised - will end up diminished, impoverished, and depressed, plus distrusting of 'their govt' more than ever - for more broken promises to 'The American People" – those of us who are not included in the Congress, Administration, Corporation hierarchies and such ' public servants' who serve themselves most and almost all gains available. And those who give benefits and rewards to their cronies who then do the same for them in the revolving industry-govt doors that spin wildly repeatedly.
Can't we be real and realistic ?
Elders are the first to be dismissed from employment - as too costly and too old.
Elders most often are the non-employable - because 'our youth' needs the jobs and are cheaper and more gullible too, will take less, be led more easily, and only later learn the hard way.
Elders can't save and hold on to their savings when Wall St experts gamble with any of their chances of keeping their money – and while the banks [cheaters too ] have played some serious deleterious games against their elder customers too. All who claim “we don’t know how the economic chaos happened !†lie and deny accountability, while savings plummeted. Still do.
Elders are often exhausted and cynical - having learned that their own trusted-before govt has let them down, once again. Their govt borrowed 'in their name', but has given not much to the people, but did favor industries, given overseas bribes to all those 'poor nations', helped lobbyists' of preferred corporations by giving away subsidies, and allowances and minimal regulations.
Social security for many is not even enough to frugally live on - if other income and savings is not available, in these ever-more expensive urban environments. And dying is not a solution either as the medical establishment insists on spending public money for their own profits and then claims they don’t know how to stop the steep inflation of health premiums. Lies. and more Lies.
And seniors elders cannot go home to live with their parents either ! What are they to do?
