Many years ago, I joined AARP. Even though I had opted out of receiving special offers from their partners, a virtual rainforest flooded my mailbox, with offers for everything from Depends to senior vacation retreats. I am on the “do not call list”. Nevertheless I was harassed half to insanity with telephone solicitors that said they have can call me, because they had a “business relationship” with me as “AARP partners”. I complained long and loud to AARP, but they were insensitive to my needs. It seemed apparent to me that AARP was far more interested in marketing to me than representing or informing me. AARP betrayed me by supporting the Bush Part D plan without demanding that US made drugs, imported from Canada, be allowed. I tore up my membership card and mailed them the pieces. Now they have betrayed senior citizens again.
AARP, the powerful lobby for older Americans that has been seen as one of the leading opponents of Social Security benefit cuts, said on Friday that it was open to modest reductions in benefits for future recipients.
The group’s stance, which generated quick reaction from all sides because of its powerful voice on the issue, could provide added ammunition to fiscal conservatives who have sought unsuccessfully to restructure Social Security and chip away at the benefits it promises older Americans.
“Our goal is to limit any changes in benefits,” John Rother, AARP’s policy chief, said in a telephone interview, “but we also want to see the system made solvent.”
Mr. Rother said the group’s stance on possible cuts, which was first reported in The Wall Street Journal in Friday’s editions, should be seen less as a major change in position than as a reflection of the political and financial realities facing the Social Security system and the country as a whole.
“You have to look at all the tradeoffs,” Mr. Rother said, “and what we’re trying to do is engage the American public in that debate.”
He made clear that the group’s willingness to discuss cuts comes with conditions: Reductions in benefits should be “minimal,” they should not affect current recipients and instead should be directed “far off in the future,” and they should be offset by increases in tax-generated revenue.
Nonetheless, the group’s openness to the possibility of unspecified cuts was seen as a significant development by people on all sides of the Social Security question because of AARP’s influence on federal policies affecting older Americans, including Medicare, prescription drugs and many more… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
I could understand AARP’s position, if there were actually a need, to cut benefits. There is not. The only need in play here is the Republican need to privatize Social Security, so their bankster buddies can do for our retirement what they did for our homes’ value.
Whatever shortfall there may be over 25 years in the future can be erased now by adjusting the income cap upward. But Republicans say it’s unfair for people grown fat from socialism for the rich to pay Social Security premiums on more than a small part of their incomes. They prefer taking it from people who barely have enough to get by.
19 Responses to “AARP Betrays Senior Citizens”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Like you I also think AARP is screwing their members just as they did with the Part D Drug Plan. I continue to file all correspondence from AARP straight to the trash can.
How stupid are seniors anyway? Wait, don’t answer that question. We already know how stupid they are.
As long as they continue to vote Republican they will continue to show their stupidity.
I completely agree! 😉
Me too – I get AARP shit in the mail and I’m in my 40’s!
And I still get it, even though I sent them my torn up ID card with a nasty letter.
My membership is up and I have no intentions of renewing.
Had you reached that conclusion before?
AARP’s action was shocking and disgusting!
I agree.
On that response alone, I don’t think I’ll join AARP when my time comes. It sounds like a very annoying institution. Given the fact that they are willing to raise the age on SS rather than remove the cap on SS, permanently and then we would never have to talk about SS again because it would be solvent until the sun went super nova. This whole SS discussion is pointless. Once again, the answer is make the rich pay more since they can afford it (I used to look forward to July, because that’s when my SS topped out) and I didn’t need the extra $30 bucks in my check but I liked getting it. My CEO’s SS ran out on his first check – he didn’t need the extra $30 either. So stop fucking around with SS and remove the fucking cap already. Problem solved and the CO2 over this issue will stop global warming. 🙄
If Congress got SS (they get a pension and a pretty hefty one for life – like their final salary in Congress or the Senate, with spousal bene’s too), you can bet that they wouldn’t be fucking around with it, but because on the poor masses get it, they are going to fuck around with it forever. Put them on SS and remove their pension and watch them scream bloody murder over not being enough. If we took off the cap, maybe seniors wouldn’t have to decide between their meds and eating and they wouldn’t be living below the poverty line. All this other BS about people not expecting to live to 65 is just that – BS. It was re-adjusted in the 80’s to include the baby boomers who will suck SS dry by the time they all retire because they live longer. Alan Simpson needs to go back to his nursing home with his Depends and fucking stay there. He’s an obnoxious prick. And how SS got thrown into the deficit commission, I’ll never know, because it doesn’t contribute one dime to the deficit. Someone (probably Obama) really fucked that one up. And there needs a cap on income – yeah, I don’t care if you paid into your whole life – like if you have more than $500K in income in retirement, you don’t get SS. Sorry to hear it; you don’t need the extra $12K that SS gives you, and no spousal bene’s either. 😡 😡 😡
I understand Bernanke and Geithner advised him on whom to pick.
I can’t add to what others have already said; The AARP , as far as I am concerned has displayed their full loyalties- it is not to the Seniors they are supposed to be representing-AARP is once again screwing Seniors—Anyone who votes Repiglican is really poorly informed at best—- I doubt there is any more honor in either the GOP , or the AARP—
Amen to both.
I gave up on AARP years ago. Like the GOP, it is only for the wealthy.
That was my experience.
Whoa, this story is a plant from the Wall Street Journal. It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch so you should know better than to believe anything in it without checking.
AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security
Reaffirms that program must be strengthened to maintain critical benefits
http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/press-center/info-06-2011/aarp-has-not-changed-its-position-on-social-security.html
“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.”
Welcome Wayne. 🙂
Rother’s quotes that confirmed the story were made to a NY Times reporter, not WSJ, so to call my article a WSJ plant has no basis in fact.
I suspect Rand’s denial is an attempt at damage control, because he knows full well that AARP lost 60,000 members after they screwed us on part D, and does not want to repeat that. After all, it’s so much more convenient when sheep pay to be slaughtered.
The purpose of AARP is to sell insurance. They don’t give a shit about seniors.
Even if nothing is done with SS, it will still be able to pay out 75% or so of benefits at a minimum. Once the boomer hump is pass, it will go back to full benefits. SS is fine.
Medicare is the one that needs work. And it is not really medicare. It is health care costs. Note, the republican plan (Ryan Plan) only controls the cost to the government, not the cost to the consumer. Thus, it does nothing to control health care costs. It controls only to cost to the government…in other words, the wealthy and powerful.
Exactly Jerry.