Say Bye-Bye, AARP
According to a story in today’s Wall Street Journal, AARP, the long time semi-official defender of seniors’ rights and perks, has now decided not to fight against cuts in Social Security benefits. No. You haven’t misread that. They are reported to no longer oppose some cuts in Social Security benefits. The reason, according to this story, is that they believe these cuts are inevitable, and they want a seat at the table “to minimize the pain.”
Let us forget, for the moment, that these cuts are not inevitable. That there are several sensible and doable alternatives to funding Social Security long into the foreseeable future. Let us focus instead on the matter of how to negotiate successfully anything, anything at all all.
First, you don’t enter the negotiation grateful that you have been given a seat at the table. As if the others at the table have a right to determine who, in fact, has the right to sit there with them. Because it you do this, let others determine the only parties who qualify to negotiate, then you’ve already conceded the outcome
Next, and more important, you never, ever, ever, ever, admit in advance that the other party has a right to do what itswants to do (in this case cut Social Security benefits), and that all you want is to ability to moderate what they what to do — if only they feel generous enough to throw you a fig leaf to cover your nakedness and shame.
This AARP approach to negotiation, of course, reflects the one adopted by our President. Which is doubtless why the AARP feels it has to do the same. Mr. Obama caves before arguments on fiscal policies have even begun. Why shouldn’t an organization that purports to defend older Americans’ rights and perks do the same?
Some policy mistakes can be repaired over time. Some can’t. For AARP, this pathetic effort to have a seat at the table instead of fighting like hell to preserve its members most basic government program is the end of the game for this organization.
It will certainly lumber along for a few more years selling various products and services to an ever diminishing membership. But its reason for being has now ended.
Bye-Bye AARP. Older Americans need defenders. Not seat-warmers at the Tea Party’s table. You have been judged and found woefully wanting.
More from this writer at http://blog.wallstreetpoet.com
15 Responses to “Say Bye-Bye, AARP”
“Bye-Bye AARP. Older Americans need defenders. Not seat-warmers at the Tea Party’s table. You have been judged and found woefully wanting.”
Agreed. I’ve viewed the AARP as in the process of selling out and becoming more watered down for some time now. Advocates for high standards (standards which aren’t dictated by money and cowardice) are getting harder to find.
Wow. There is this great little article in the June issue of AARP Bulletin by James Roosevelt, Jr. (grandson of FDR) about the state of Social Security, which is to say pretty darn good for at least the next 26 years. Maybe AARP knows something we don’t. Maybe lots of AARP members are now tea party types who don’t want their Social Security messed with but are fine to mess with folks coming along after them. I know we realistically have to look at all issues and do some compromising, but this smells a little fishy to me coming at this moment.
I have no doubt whatsoever that today’s GOP would much sooner invest in the pitting of generation against generation than they would a genuine longterm fix for social security. It’s just how they roll.
classic case of “i got mine”
Part of the confusion comes from the fact that Social Security was the base program of an umbrella of benefits. When people are talking about Social Security being in trouble, they mean all parts together. When others talk about it being stable for many years, they mean only the core.
As I wrote elsewhere, it’s stupid to presume there’s some magic that will keep the unsustainable going.
It’s also stupid to write off the AARP (without the tougher times to come yet, without the retirement of the Baby Boomers who will want to minimize their future losses, too) as cowards, just as it is stupid to accuse Obama of being a coward for conceding, too, to reality.
The kids who believe in magic (entitlements) really are silly now.
As for the other core misjudgment by Silverstein, no, it makes no sense, and in fact it also is stupid to approach negotiations not in a realistic (truly good-faith) manner but to begin with a ridiculous, nonsensical starting position (no changes to entitlements at all that in any way constitute a dimunition of the programs or of the payoffs to the beneficiaries and strength of the interest group in the future).
Insisting on “single-payer” [sic; Medicare for all or the equivalent] was stupid during the health care “reform” games in the previous two years, and in no way was not doing so constituting any kind of sacrifice or “concession” in any realistic, honest way. The same is true for anyone who wants as an opening position no changes at all to the entitlements, don’t touch them for thirty years (Reid) or forever (even more stupid), etc. That’s not for real, not sound, not respectable.
J. Spencer — you join Silver in exercising gross misjudgment.
Had you said that about the “senior lobby” (relatively soft as it has been for some time, as everyone deals with other issues like wars and an ailing economy, among other things), or about some little entitlement-preserving organizations that are as silly as everyone else who says the programs are fine and nothing should be done (as Dems said in 2005 and they’re saying now, still, in large numbers), then you would have been correct and displayed accurate powers of observation and analysis, rather than the opposite you posted here.
And anyone who believes there won’t be an elderly lobby later — you apparently aren’t aware either of the Baby Boom cohort and its aging, or of the demographic changes coming that will make the conflict between elderly entitlement beneficiaries and future taxpayers much greater than what we have seen already.
Take a breath, folks. From a primary contact I have with AARP, here’s their statement on the WSJ article:
AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security
Reaffirms that program must be strengthened to maintain critical benefits
WASHINGTON – AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security:
“Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations. Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.
“First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation’s deficit. Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less.
“Our focus has always been on the human impact of changes, not just the budget tables. Which is why, as we have done numerous times over the last several decades, AARP is engaging our volunteer Board to evaluate any proposed changes to Social Security to determine how each might – individually or in different combinations – impact the lives of current and future retirees given the constantly changing economic realities they face.
“Second, we have maintained for years – to our members, the media and elected officials – that long term solvency is key to protecting and strengthening Social Security for all generations, and we have urged elected officials in Washington to address the program’s long-term challenges in a way that’s fair for all generations.
“It has long been AARP’s policy that Social Security should be strengthened to provide adequate benefits and that it is sufficiently financed to ensure solvency with a stable trust fund for the next 75 years. It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries.
“AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation’s bills.
“Social Security is a critically important issue for our members, their families and Americans of all ages, especially at a time when many will have less retirement security than previous generations with fewer pensions, less savings and rising health care costs. And, as we have been for decades, we will continue to protect this bedrock of lifetime financial security for all generations of Americans.”
Thanks for the update Taylor!
Thanks Taylor: I put a notice of AARP’s decided refutation of some news media reports on this, on the other post as well.
You folks really ought to read this weaselly “refutation” carefully. It actually sounds very like Rep. Ryan’s justification for changing Medicare. He, too, doesn’t want to affect Medicare for present and near future beneficiaries — just those now under 55. And these changes, he said, are supposed to save the program and keep it solvent forever. A real refutation about Social Security by AARP would read simply: “We don’t support any changes to the program for present or future beneficiaries that would lessen anyone’s Social Security benefits.” What was said instead is very, very different — just another example of Beltway conspeak.
pay back SS the 2 trillion it’s owed in T-bills, and we’ll talk.
anybody want to explain why this debt is somehow unmentioned in our learned discussion of the money-grubbing old farts.
let’s hear it economists!!
LOL Hemm, so much energy spent on accounting.
That debt is just going to be replaced with more debt when it’s redeemed. Not that it matters of course.
The Trustees have tried to warn people for years about the “trust funds” simply being more federal debt and competing claims on Treasury revenues — which will have to be increased or shifted from elsewhere in the federal budget. Others have warned people about this, or tried to. It’s lost on many, sadly — the many who often deny there’s anything wrong, and later will be angry when it happens and shout, “Why didn’t somebody DO something about it earlier?”
Well, it’s a more clear refutation than some GOP politicians having negative views of the Ryan plan (and how badly the public views it).