AARP joins the Grand Bargain
by digby
So the big news today, aside from apparent shock by some observers at Netroots Nation that people there aren’t totally satisfied with the President (he lifted DADT after all)is that the head of AARP made the statement that the organization wants to be at the wheel when the government rams the Social Security Titanic right into that iceberg. Seriously:
“The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens,” said John Rother, AARP’s long-time policy chief and a prime mover behind its change of heart.
This article is in the Wall Street Journal which obviously has an agenda. But the quotes are direct and what the story lays out is a big fight within the organization — with Rother winning the argument.
Now, I don’t know if this is true but it tracks with everything else we know about the specious arguments going around:
His argument: Tax increases wouldn’t be enough to make the program solvent. The leading proposal for raising taxes—increasing the amount of income subject to payroll taxes, the central financing mechanism for the program—would fill less than half the hole. Moreover, Republicans were not going to accept a plan that didn’t include benefit cuts. The idea that both tax increases and benefit cuts were needed dovetailed closely with plans put forward by several separate commissions in Washington seeking to ease the U.S.’s long-term fiscal woes.
“There was good, healthy discussion,” said John Penn, chairman of Intek Plastics Inc., a member of AARP’s board. “Healthy tension usually results in better answers, but sometimes it’s painful in the process.”
When Mr. Obama considered making a Social Security proposal early this year, Mr. Rother indicated he would be supportive, said two people familiar with the matter. But the White House opted to hold off.
I’m guessing there’s a reason why he’s gone public now.
He claims they don’t want this to be in the “context” of deficit reduction, but that’s just silly. If the conversation is taking place right now, it’s in the context of deficit reduction. And interestingly, the only conversation that seems to be seriously discussed is cuts to the safety net — I certainly haven’t heard much about tax hikes or defense cuts. (Oh wait, that’s right, the GOP agreed to reduce a couple of subsidies to hugely profitable corporations so everybody now has “skin in the game” and it’s even-steven.)
Moreover, the Grand Bargain was always about a major deal involving the two parties coming together under the guiding hand of the post-partisan president. The Republicans laughed at the notion but they did see an opportunity to get a whole lot of concessions from the Democrats for next to nothing in return.(#didn’ttakeapoliticalgenius)
And they have been extremely good at working the various levers of power in ways that Democrats simply refuse to do. This shot across the bow a couple of months ago, for instance, probably had an effect:
[T]he two committee chairmen leading the hearings insist their investigation is neither a form of political payback nor an effort to sully the organization’s reputation. Says Wally Herger, chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommitte on Health:
This hearing is about getting to the bottom of how AARP’s financial interests affect their self-stated mission of enhancing seniors’ quality of life. It is important to better understand how AARP’s insurance business overlaps with its advocacy efforts and whether such overlap is appropriate.
Not that AARP doesn’t deserve some scrutiny for these arrangements, but the Republicans didn’t bother to ask such questions when the organization was backing their play on prescription drugs. They play this sort of hardball when they want something. In this case, I think everyone knew that both parties want to cut Social Security but they have this little problem with the people they represent not wanting them to do it. AARP has been enlisted to try to smooth that out.
AARP claims they are going to hold a series of townhall meetings to explain their position to their members. I’m not one of them, having dropped my membership after a year when I realized that it was mainly an insurance and investment broker. But for those who are members, I would think these meetings would be a great place for people to stand up en masse and rip up their AARP cards. If the organization is willing to be used, at the expense of their members, by those who seek their own aggrandizement and agenda, then they are pretty damned useless.
Update: AARP’s statement:
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.”
Rother’s quote in the article indicates that they already believe it’s in the mix and they have decided to become part of the negotiations, which is the real problem.
I think if they truly aren’t going to allow SS to used as a chip, somebody needs to clearly state that they are not going to endorse any changes to Social Security right now due to the volatile nature of the unrelated deficit debate. It’s insane to even talk about it right now. We have much more immediate problems to deal with.
Update II: I see that Eric Kingson has already suggested burning the AARP cards. There’s a nice symmetry to that, since AARP members are all baby boomers whose first activities in politics were around burning their draft cards.
.