AARP's America Is a Mirage-Op Ed piece in WaPo

[RaiderH8r]

An interesting perspective that I have long agreed with. Samuelson does a nice job of summarizing the issue. For discussion....SO DISCUSS

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111501308.html


By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A19

Dear Robert J. Samuelson,

Our records show that you haven't yet registered for the benefits of AARP membership, even though you are fully eligible. . . . I look forward to your joining us.

Sincerely, William D. Novelli, Executive Director

Among AARP's 36 million members, there must be many decent people who benefit from the 5 to 50 percent discounts offered on car rentals, hotel rooms and airline tickets. But I won't be joining, because AARP has become America's most dangerous lobby. If left unchecked, its agenda will plunder our children and grandchildren. Massive outlays for the elderly threaten huge tax increases and other government spending. Both may weaken the economy and the social fabric. No thanks.

Anyone who's watched the steel and auto industries can visualize AARP's America. In those industries, companies and unions unrealistically agreed to overly generous pensions and retiree health benefits that, as the number of retirees multiplied, overburdened the companies. Now past promises collide with present economic realities. Workers and retirees suffer. Wages and jobs are cut; so are pensions and retiree health benefits. On a much larger scale, that may be America's fate.

AARP (which once stood for the American Association of Retired Persons) had a budget of nearly $900 million in 2004. It stays in contact with its members through a monthly newspaper, two bimonthly magazines and an e-mail list of 2.5 million political activists. Robert Bixby of the budget-watching Concord Coalition says that, aside from the president, only AARP can set the terms of debate on federal retirement programs, meaning mainly Social Security, Medicare and long-term care through Medicaid.

AARP would have you believe that it's trying to balance the interests of retirees and workers. It has just released a report, "Reimagining America," that rightly poses these questions: "Can America afford to grow older? And can we do so with intergenerational fairness -- that is, without burdening our children and grandchildren with the bills?" It then spends 41 pages not answering those questions. On the one hand, it concedes that "as a nation, we are not now ready for the retirement of the baby boomers." On the other, it argues that "the problem is overstated." Nowhere will you find a precise agenda of what ought to be done.

Overstated? Well, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid constitute more than 40 percent of federal spending. Given the baby boom, longer life expectancies and rising health care costs, these programs are projected (by the Congressional Budget Office and others) to grow by about two-thirds or more during the next 25 years. To cover these costs, we'd have to do one of the following: Raise all federal taxes by 30 to 50 percent (depending on whether today's budget were balanced); eliminate defense spending and 30 percent of other federal spending, excluding interest payments; run budget deficits three times present levels.

This year AARP spent $25 million, mostly on TV and print ads, to defeat President Bush's proposal for "personal" Social Security accounts. The punch line of one ad is revealing: "If you have a problem with the sink, you don't tear down the entire house." Translation: The problems of today's retirement programs resemble a clogged sink; "personal accounts" are a radical solution, akin to demolishing the house. Only modest tinkering (fixing the sink) is needed. Brilliant imagery -- and totally misleading.

Like AARP, I oppose personal accounts. But I do so because they divert attention from the basic problems and don't do much to solve them. It isn't just the sink that's clogged; the roof is leaking, the porch is sagging and the wiring is faulty. Unless we renovate the entire house, it will become uninhabitable. That is, we need to rewrite the social contract to reflect improved health and longer life expectancies: Americans need to work longer, eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare need to be raised gradually, and benefits for wealthier retirees should be reduced.

If we'd started 10 or 20 years ago -- when the problems were equally obvious -- changes would have been easier. The longer we delay, the harder they'll be. But delay is AARP's program. As to the future, its stock answer is: Fix health care. A less costly and more effective health care system would control Medicare and Medicaid spending. True. But several decades of loud calls for a more efficient and effective health care system haven't yet created one. Meanwhile, the question remains: Who pays? AARP expects younger taxpayers to bear most of the burden.

Where's the generational fairness? There are several theories to explain AARP's behavior. One is cynicism. AARP aims to maximize members' benefits; the talk of generational fairness is PR. Another theory is that AARP is scared of its members. Any talk of future benefit cuts might trigger a firestorm. Even when Congress passed the new Medicare drug benefit in 2003, many AARP members protested. They thought the benefit too stingy or objected to any alliance with Bush.

Either way, AARP's America is an illusion. Sooner or later, it will be overtaken by demographic and economic realities. The reluctance to begin refashioning benefits -- focusing more on the neediest and oldest Americans -- will compel more wrenching benefit cuts later. By their abruptness, these will be unfair. But even these cuts won't spare younger workers from higher taxes or cuts in other programs. Like autoworkers and steelworkers, we will learn that we could ignore the future but not avoid it.

[W*GS]

I agree with most of what Samuelson said. AARP scares the feces out of me.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I agree with most of what Samuelson said. AARP scares the feces out of me.

18th century relics dictating 21st century policies. Something seems amiss here....

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Well, being of the age that I am eligible to be an AARP member, I am probably closer to this issue than most of the members of this board. I refuse to join AARP. They are nothing but another lobbying organization run by special interests that have a vested interest in exploiting the aging American Population. Where do you think they get that $900 million they spend? From 75 year old widows collecting SS? No they get it from selling your name to every f'ing insurance company, drug company, assisted living center, retirement community realator,etc in the country plus the direct financing they receive from those and other special interest. The AARP is not serving the best ineterest of the population over 50 that it claims to be doing. It is serving the interest of its benefactors.

In terms of Social Securiity benefits, something must be done. I have heard many solutions and they all have their pluses and minuses. I think there should be major tax reform that changes our entire tax structure, but that is an uphill battle. I have been fully "vested" in social security for twenty years and will work at least another ten, meaning that if I had quit contributing twenty years ago, I would collect the same benefits I would receive if I kept working. All of the money that is collected from me and from my company to pay social security goes to pay benefits to someone else. This year that will be over $7,000 out of my pocket directly and another $7,000 paid by my company which I own. My wife is in the same position, but does not work for a company she owns, so our out of pocket expenses for SS will be over $21,000 this year. I receive no benefits form those contributions. If Social Security is approached individually, the system that I have heard that would be most attractive to me personally is to allow employees who have reached the "fully vested level" to invest their portion of the payments (my $7000) in tax deferred personal accounts that can only be invested in federal governement securities and have the company portion go into the general social security system to pay benefits. When I retire, the interest on that money would be deducted from my social security benefits, but the principal would remain my asset and part of my estate. The object of requiring the funds to be invested in government securities is to make sure that investment is secure and not taken away form the government's cash flow. Obviously this is not a perfect or probably not even a good solution, but it is the only one I have heard that makes a bit of sense to me.

[Garcia Bronco]

This is exactly what the President tried to do...fix it now..before it gets worse...but the moron known as Reid wasn't having it....Social Security...what a joke. Hopefully one day we can yank it.

[Garcia Bronco]

"I think there should be major tax reform that changes our entire tax structure "

The President has asked congress to do this twice now in SOTU addresses.

[alkemical]

They are Garcia - by talking about removing the mortgage tax deduction... among other things they are talking about as well

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

"I think there should be major tax reform that changes our entire tax structure "

The President has asked congress to do this twice now in SOTU addresses.

But the only real movement is the AICPA's simplification push. Last time there was simplification it added 1600 pages to the code. AICPA pushing tax simplification? Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Originally Posted by amesj523

They are Garcia - by talking about removing the mortgage tax deduction... among other things they are talking about as well

Thats not a change in tax structure - that is just a tax increase under the current structure

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by amesj523

They are Garcia - by talking about removing the mortgage tax deduction... among other things they are talking about as well

The President pretty much asked them to totally re-write it in his last SOTU...and congress has done nothing. ...at removing the mortgage deduction....homeowners typically vote. The estate tax needs to go forever. On a different note...my state needs to get rid of personal property tax on vehicles. After insurance, car payment, and gas....the personal property tax on my primary car is a joke. 1 week out of every month I work is to pay for my car...that's a ****ing joke. But the more social programs we add...and the more free money the government gives out...the day we have free health care...I'm just going to be a bum.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Big Guy

Thats not a change in tax structure - that is just a tax increase under the current structure

I think he was joking.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Big Guy

Thats not a change in tax structure - that is just a tax increase under the current structure

sarcasm dr. watson

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

The President pretty much asked them to totally re-write it in his last SOTU...and congress has done nothing. ...at removing the mortgage deduction....homeowners typically vote. The estate tax needs to go forever. On a different note...my state needs to get rid of personal property tax on vehicles. After insurance, car payment, and gas....the personal property tax on my primary car is a joke. 1 week out of every month I work is to pay for my car...that's a ****ing joke. But the more social programs we add...and the more free money the government gives out...the day we have free health care...I'm just going to be a bum.

Does it really matter if you vote?

I think that healthcare needs a major overhaul as well garcia - but i dunno about free - I mean right now i pay $80/wk and that's just for me!!! So for me if i paid LESS in a tax for healthcare - i would benifit me financially.

I agree on the tax for this and tax for that. Personally i think that there should be no Dept of Ed. on the federal level - i think each state should handle that and welfare - although i do think you should have some account for unemployment, but you have to 'earn' it and not get some of the benifits - either that, or get placed in a socialism type program of doing roadside cleanup, etc to earn it -

[W*GS]

I'll make my standard wager:

If someone will return to me all that I've paid into SS over my working career (including the part my employers have paid), right now, in cash, when I'm eligible for SS benefits, I will sign them over.

Anyone wanna take me up on this bet?

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I'll make my standard wager:

If someone will return to me all that I've paid into SS over my working career (including the part my employers have paid), right now, in cash, when I'm eligible for SS benefits, I will sign them over.

Anyone wanna take me up on this bet?

That $$ has already been spent. My sincerest sympathies, but most of us are in the same boat. This system stinks. Wreaks to high heaven. They can keep the money they've already taken from me. Fine, whatever, I've been screwed. But only if the gov't immediately ceases all deductions from my paycheck for SS and allows me to roll it into my 401K w/an equal match from my employer. Done and done.

[Garcia Bronco]

Exactly...keep what you've taken bastards..but don't take another dime. Federal Taxes alone took 1/8th of my paycheck so far this year. Basically...when I work from January to mid Febuary...that's jsut to pay federal taxes. 30 business days of the year.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by amesj523

Does it really matter if you vote?

I think that healthcare needs a major overhaul as well garcia - but i dunno about free - I mean right now i pay $80/wk and that's just for me!!! So for me if i paid LESS in a tax for healthcare - i would benifit me financially.

I agree on the tax for this and tax for that. Personally i think that there should be no Dept of Ed. on the federal level - i think each state should handle that and welfare - although i do think you should have some account for unemployment, but you have to 'earn' it and not get some of the benifits - either that, or get placed in a socialism type program of doing roadside cleanup, etc to earn it -

I pay 23 (typically 45)dollars a paycheck for some pretty kick ass health care...no dependents....and I'm enrolled in company program where I see an RN once a quarter with blood work...in return...our healthcare provider gives us about a 50% discount. No bad.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

That $$ has already been spent. My sincerest sympathies, but most of us are in the same boat. This system stinks. Wreaks to high heaven. They can keep the money they've already taken from me. Fine, whatever, I've been screwed. But only if the gov't immediately ceases all deductions from my paycheck for SS and allows me to roll it into my 401K w/an equal match from my employer. Done and done.

That's basically my alternate wager when the first one is too scary.

Just let me opt out of SS today (including the money my employer has to pay), and I'll never seek a dime of SS benefits.

So far, not a single person, ardent welfare-state liberals included, has taken me up on either offer. Even they realize, down deep, that SS is a gigantic sucker's bet, and folks like us are getting screwed big-time.

What bothers me most about those bogus SS statements we all get each year is not so much the amount of money I've lost, it's the implicit debt my kids and eventual grandkids will have to pay off.

I fully expect SS to collapse sometime between now and when I'm eligible. We as a nation will have pissed away trillions in wealth for nothing, basically. Probably the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on any group of people, over generations, in the history of humankind.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Last year, which was nothing out of the ordinary, I paid more in Fed Income tax than I did for payments on two houses, all of my gas, insurance and other upkeep on three cars, all of the food bought at grocery stores for my family, my health insurance plus uncovered medical expenses and all of the clothing my family bought. Somehow I think I like most others have a right to b****.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I pay 23 (typically 45)dollars a paycheck for some pretty kick ass health care...no dependents....and I'm enrolled in company program where I see an RN once a quarter with blood work...in return...our healthcare provider gives us about a 50% discount. No bad.

that's a sweet gig, i pay much more -

i just want to keep my money dammit!

[W*GS]

My current health insurance is one of those new-ish high-deductible HSA plans. Used to have an HMO plan, but it got too expensive.

This one, it costs me ~$25 biweekly, but I also put $120 biweekly into the HSA. IIRC, the deductible (for which I'm liable 100%) is the first $5,400, but we get to choose doctors, there's no co-pay, and most routine preventative care is paid for. No vision coverage, though, which is a pain.

What I do have to pay for doctor's visits is what the insurance company pays, not necessarily what the doctor bills.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by amesj523

that's a sweet gig, i pay much more -

i just want to keep my money dammit!

I work with a benefits insurance agency....more and more you'll start to see "flexible" spending account health plans. Currently, the Hypochondriacs are killing companies that provide benefits with payouts...i.e going to the doctor for frivilous means...whatever that is...the idea behind the flex accounts is if people are in more direct control of there health care dollars they'll spend less. I think it's a dumb idea....while these accounts draw interest....all it would take is a bad car accident and your budget gets blown out of the water for years. But go accident free for a few years and you'll amass a good amount of money. At first the money was use it or lose..LMAO....when they said this year it wasn't use it or lose it...I commented..."You mean I get to keep my money that I didn't spend....wow!"

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I work with a benefits insurance agency....more and more you'll start to see "flexible" spending account health plans. Currently, the Hypochondriacs are killing companies that provide benefits with payouts...i.e going to the doctor for frivilous means...whatever that is...the idea behind the flex accounts is if people are in more direct control of there health care dollars they'll spend less. I think it's a dumb idea....while these accounts draw interest....all it would take is a bad car accident and your budget gets blown out of the water for years. But go accident free for a few years and you'll amass a good amount of money. At first the money was use it or lose..LMAO....when they said this year it wasn't use it or lose it...I commented..."You mean I get to keep my money that I didn't spend....wow!"

That's mighty grand of them.

[alkemical]

See i've only gone to the doctor for serious issues - most of the time i have problems with doctors - but hell when i break my arm - i go to one - when i need to have something cut out i go to a doctor - but a sneeze, a cough - blah blah blah -

Good thing this bird flu is driving more people to go to the doctor for -