Skip to main content

Below the fold is the exact email I sent to AARP today, less some identifying characteristics.  

Yes, I know this was yesterday's issue, but those of us who are a little -older- more experienced are -slower- more deliberate in our responses.  If you're an AARP member, you should check the website and look over their "stance" on Social Security.  I hope your email or letter to them is as clear and firm as mine.  And yes, I did not burn my AARP card as FDL advocated.  I have found that a clear letter promising specific action and requesting action from them is more persuasive than an outright cancellation of membership. But rest assured, if AARP compromises on Social Security other than means testing it for the rich, then they will get a nice charred pile of plastic with my cancellation letter.

To:  AARP representatives

From:      Member XXX XXX

RE:    Social Security

I joined AARP because you stood up forthrightly for Social Security against George W. Bush and Radical Republicans.  I will not remain a member of an organization that does not oppose any and all cuts in Social Security for any and all current or forthcoming generations.  

My wife and I already are members of the generation that, supposedly, cannot retire until age 66-67.  That generation and many now in their 50s who lose jobs cannot find work, and have run or are running through savings and unemployment insurance.  Soon that will be gone for many of our friends, peers and relatives, and some of our relatives have already had to retire early due to this.  Their Social Security payouts are their only lifeline now; their payouts will be reduced for the rest of their lives through neither the fault nor intent of their own.  The safety net in this country is already far too thin.  We will not tolerate it being cut still more, and especially not with the support of an organization to which we (my wife and I) belong.

We have already seen our Social Security benefits cut by Ronald Reagan by raising the age of retirement for us, and we have never forgotten it, and never voted for a Republican since.  We support several groups such as AARP, Public Citizen, Habitat for Humanity and Daily Kos that oppose Darwinian Republicanism applied to those least able to resist it.

We will not tolerate any, repeat any, cut in Social Security.  Be it by further raising the age of retirement or by messing with the cost of living/inflation calculations (a means used repeatedly to cut social security in real terms).  We know what is happening to our Social Security; we watch it carefully, and we (my wife and I) will NOT remain as AARP members on any terms other than a raising of the income cap or a means test for people with assets of at least 5 million and/or annual investment income of at least 10 times the minimum wage.  Since Republicans appear unable to bear taxing the rich, only a means test for the most wealthy appears negotiable at this time.  That is our only concession and the only one we are willing to see AARP support.  We strongly believe, in fact, that AARP should push for a more accurate measure of inflation before the next round of inflation hits.

We would like very much to see AARP clarify its stance on Social Security.  We have read your releases assuring us of no change in the AARP position, but the position itself leaves very much open for interpretation or negotiation.  It especially implies that future generations--our children and grandchildren--will be screwed by our generation even as our parent's generation screwed us (Reagan era generation).  We will NOT support this.  

Any proposal from AARP which cuts Social Security for anyone other than the wealthiest will result in our immediate cancellation of AARP membership, and we will make very clear to our friends, relatives, and contacts exactly what we did and why.

I trust that this statement is clearer, and firmer, than yours on what our actions will be.

Yours, very sincerely,

Monkeybrainpolitics

So, what do you think?  Please take the poll and if you'd like, tips for retirees or near retirees would be appreciated.  

I have about 7 years to go nominally but I expect 62 is about all I can persuade the powers that be to retain me overseas.  In Hong Kong, retirement is at 60 unless special dispensation is granted--and I just got 2 years added to take me up to 62.  So I'm looking at a 3 year medical insurance gap before Medicare when I finally return to America.  That is bad, and risky, enough.  We're keeping our Hong Kong residency rights up to date after retirement because we have heavily subsidized medical care--I just have to be able to fly back to Hong Kong to exercise those rights.  Too bad I have to rely on a "communist" country to treat me like a human being.  (Yes, Hong Kong is part of China and has been for years--so all of China is not a prison.  And Yes, much of China has really lousy healthcare and working conditions too.  That is not the point.  Americans should be able to expect to be treated better than anyone anywhere in China, including Hong Kong.  After all, didn't Americans pioneer the idea of human rights?)

Originally posted to Global Expats on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 10:47 PM PDT.

Also republished by Social Security Defenders.

Poll

What would you do about Social Security?

52%221 votes
0%1 votes
0%2 votes
11%49 votes
19%83 votes
12%53 votes
0%3 votes
0%2 votes
1%8 votes

| 422 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Bravo! I have not joined yet... (16+ / 0-)

    Still early 50's ...but if AARP supports any loss of SS benefits...then they will never see my name on their roster.

    "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." -Thomas Paine

    by Tommymac on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 10:55:54 PM PDT

    •  A far better alternative to aarp, in my view: (11+ / 0-)

      http://www.retiredamericans.org/

      like I said elsewhere on DK over the past few days, I destroyed my aarp card back in '03 when they endorsed the BIG-PHARMA-SCAM. These days, Social Security recipients (the working-class) is not aarp's #1 priority. Selling junk insurance is...

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:44:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  would the diarist be willing to add this? (4+ / 0-)

        AARP needs to be reminded that they are NOT the only game in town.

        $ to DFA, none to DSCC/DCCC/DNC

        by grrr on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 08:06:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Diarist is in China (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          princesspat

          where time is opposite of east coast US, so was asleep when this suggestion was made.  But always a good idea to have competition.  I'll check into retiredamericans.org and I suggest other readers do so too.  I like ratcityreprobate's idea, but also agree with Sybil Liberty that if aarp does not respond well, it's time to shrink that organization down to size and make it feel the heat.

          America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

          by monkeybrainpolitics on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 02:53:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't disagree, but AARP is much more (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JanL, fritzi56, monkeybrainpolitics

        influential in DC and only members can pressure the powers that be in AARP.  Threatening to cut up our cards is the way to pressure them.  Think I'll join retiredamericans and stay in AARP and keep on sending them nasty messages.

        Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

        by ratcityreprobate on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 08:10:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  FHA: aarp does NOT listen to the grievances (5+ / 0-)

          of its members. Clearly Mr. Rother, aarp's "policy chief", brokers for Wall St., then AND now.

          We need to grow a bigger lobby group who will advocate for us.

          ...and btw, this widow/fixed income strongly urges Kay Bailey Hutchinson to go cheney herself (along with aarp) In my 2nd year of no cola, with gas, food (and also insurance supplemental premiums) escalating at what seems the speed of light, it burns.

          I certainly expected seniors to "share the burden", but at 73 I hardly expected we would shoulder the full weight. Social Security did NOT cause this deficit...not one damned dime's worth.

          ok, no more whiiiiiiiiiiine from this old crone

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 08:39:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  YOU are exactly one of the folks that makes me so (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sybil Liberty

            angry about this.  One of my relatives had to retire at 57 when he ran thru all his unemployment, savings, insurance, things he could sell and borrow from relatives, etc ran out.  Construction just died and at that age he couldn't get a job.  Sadly, and infuriatingly, he is a staunch Republican who blames Obama for this.  Given how little we hear about jobs from him and so many other Democrats, it's really hard to persuade him otherwise.  Even if we cannot get a jobs bill past the Republicans, trying to do so with great hoopla and complaint would help a lot for the 2012 elections.  The first words from Obama's mouth every time he stands in front of a mike should be "I urge the Republican majority in the House to take up the jobs bills I have sent them.  Republicans cannot let their partisan hatred of Democrats stand in the way of acting to address America's dire need for jobs."  Do this often enough, and get every other Democrat to join in, and Republicans will be on the run by October.
            I particularly support your comments about inflation.  COLA formula has been amended so much it no longer reflects, even remotely, the real level of inflation.

            America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

            by monkeybrainpolitics on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:02:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sybil Liberty

        I just added my name to their mailing list.

      •  Thank you for that link. (3+ / 0-)

        I had never heard of them before.

        Membership is only $10.00 a year, unless you're a union member, in which case the union pays yours dues.

        To every millionaire who decries they don't want their grandchildren paying for the deficit, I say: PAY MORE TAXES NOW and your grandkids won't have a deficit burden.

        by gooderservice on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 09:52:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! you are saying the same thing as House (0+ / 0-)

        Republicans!

        How ... odd.

        Conservation! Because the cheapest energy is the energy you don't use.

        by ohiolibrarian on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 11:05:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what? (0+ / 0-)
          June 17, 2011

          A story ran in The Wall Street Journal today stating that AARP supports cutting Social Security benefits. “AARP does not speak for all seniors. And on this topic probably not for many of their own members,” said Edward F. Coyle, Executive Director of the Alliance. “There is no ambiguity on where the Alliance for Retired Americans stands on Social Security - never has been, never will be. We are against Social Security benefit cuts for seniors,” he continued. read more

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 11:14:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If Republicans are staunchly against cutting (0+ / 0-)

          Social Security except for the very richest, then I guess I am.  But that is definitely NOT my impression of the Republican stance.  Going from Sen Hutchinson's bill, she wants to cut COLA, cut benefits, raise the retirement age to 70 and do various other cuts.  If you think that is what I support, please read the letter again.  I am trying my very best to make it blisteringly clear that targeting the poor, the elderly, the children, the disabled, the troops--wives, kids and those in service and their pay, medical and support services--and immigrants--all clear Republican priorities, are NOT what I support.  Cut defense in half or more.  Bring the troops home.  Support the hundreds of thousands with brain injuries and ptsd who got damaged serving our country.  If that is what you think House Republicans are saying, please recheck the record. And if you read the AARP release, it is weasel worded about cuts to the coming generations.  Republicans are explicit about cutting benefits for them.  I am definitely NOT.  

          America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

          by monkeybrainpolitics on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:12:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To be clear, House Republicans (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            monkeybrainpolitics

            wanted to investigate AARP because they claim that their involvement in insurance negates everything else they may do and therefore they shouldn't have whatever nonprofit status they have.

            My comment was directed to Sybil Liberty who was making the same claim.

            Listen, AARP may not be on the right side at all times, but the attack on them stinks the same as the ACORN and Planned Parenthood and even union attacks. Undermining independent advocacy seems to be the current plan and it's dangerous ... for us.

            The tendency for some progressives to cooperate with these attacks is disturbing.

            Conservation! Because the cheapest energy is the energy you don't use.

            by ohiolibrarian on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:01:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for clarifying. Sorry I misunderstood (0+ / 0-)

              but you are right on this.  Even with its faults, AARP has been on the right side much more often than it's been on the wrong one.  And as much as I object to being forced to buy inadequate and overpriced medical insurance with no option of a public service I could buy into (like Medicare), AARP is not the main culprit.  And as far as I can tell, its insurance is better priced and performs better than most other options out there.  I just got a little hot under the collar about being accused, so I thought, of falling for a Republican ploy and echoing their line.  When they are right--and so far, it's gotten less and less often ever since Nixon, who had a better public medical coverage scheme than either Clinton or Obama, I am not afraid to say so.  But I really don't want to fall for any of their lying duplicity on so many things.  I so despise Fox "News" that I would pay extra to have cable without it even being available in the package.

              America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

              by monkeybrainpolitics on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:53:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  People on the left try to gather information (0+ / 0-)

                and make up their own minds. We don't want to be like Republicans and just follow the party line without thinking.

                Unfortunately, I think that this means that we can sometimes fall prey to a plausible line. We just have to be careful and try to be appropriately skeptical when we hear about an "outrage" from a questionable source or about an organization with at least some good in their history.

                BTW, just saw an AARP ad defending Medicare/SS, but no specifics.

                Conservation! Because the cheapest energy is the energy you don't use.

                by ohiolibrarian on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 08:05:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the link (0+ / 0-)

        Will definitely check this organization out.

        America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

        by monkeybrainpolitics on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 02:50:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good letter. I support no cuts,no compromise. (24+ / 0-)

    Unless the compromise is to raise the cap. That is all.

    I do not support means testing because it is a meaningless gesture fiscally but is a PR win for those who want to make SS less popular. It furthers the agenda of those who want to deride SS as a welfare program,not a worker's plan.  CEPR (among others)  studied the means testing BS. Here is a link to their full report:  http://www.cepr.net/....

     What follows is part of an article from Angry Bear referencing that report, bolding mine.

       

    The majority of Social Security beneficiaries are lower- to middle- income people,” said Dean Baker, an author of the paper and a co-director at CEPR. “The number of beneficiaries who are by most standards considered affluent is too small to raise a significant amount of money via means testing.”

        The report, “The Potential Savings to Social Security from Means Testing,” first describes the distribution of Social Security benefits by income level. The authors then look at the effects of phasing out benefits at rates of 10 and 20 percent of every dollar of non-Social Security income above $40,000 or $100,000 and find little in the way of potential savings to Social Security. The savings are even less when behavioral responses in the form of tax avoidance or tax evasion are factored in, since a means test would effectively be an increase in the marginal tax rate for wealthier seniors.

        The data show that over 75 percent of social security benefits go to individuals with non-Social Security income of less than $20,000 and 90 percent goes to those with non-Social Security income of less than $40,000 a year as of 2009. If means testing that phased out benefits at 10 percent were applied to those who make $100,000 a year and assuming no change in behavior, it would only save Social Security 0.74 percent of its outlays.

        At a 20 percent rate, this would only yield savings equal to1.33 percent of costs. If the phase out were dropped down to $40,000, hardly wealthy by any standard, the overall savings would just be 2.77 percent of costs at the 10 percent rate and only 4.65 percent of costs at the 20 percent rate. Accounting for behavioral responses would lead to even smaller savings, could cut these potential savings by half or more.

        Mean testing would also raise the cost of the program. The retirement program currently has very low costs. If the administrative expenses rose to the level of the disability portion of the Social Security program, the higher costs would likely exceed any savings from a means test.   http://www.businessinsider.com/....

    Best of luck with your future plans.

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 11:08:48 PM PDT

    •  I agree with Angry Bear and you, but (11+ / 0-)

      if this is the only way Republicans will "tax" the rich and redress the imbalance in fairness between the rich and poor, then I feel like I should take it.  I would far rather take off the cap on Social Security in exchange for NOT means testing it.  I really get frustrated at the way Democrats and our supposed representatives (AARP, I mean YOU and YOU TOO many of our union representatives) "negotiate".  If we had half the gonads our opponents have in pursuing the interests of our constituents (no one can accuse the Republicans of defending the rich half heartedly), then I would feel better about our side.  If you watched the Netroots Nation interview Angry Mouse conducted with the White House aide, you can see he regards progressives as critics.  But we are, or should be, the Democratic Party BASE.  We are not critics except as they ignore us, the BASE.  Republicans pander to their base and protect their rich patrons at the same time.  Democrats kick their base in the teeth and pander to their enemies--trying to get a pittance from the rich who prefer real Republicans over fake ones--and wonder why they end up friendless and hated by everyone.

      America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

      by monkeybrainpolitics on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 11:24:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed.I was surprised at how dismissive (7+ / 0-)

        that aide was. No wonder we have a messaging problem. That "professional Democrat" didn't even know how to woo a crowd of Democrats.

        "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

        by tardis10 on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 11:54:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Please stop (5+ / 0-)

        thinking the Democrats in government represent you. They represent the banks and insurance companies who pay them. The Ryan plan is a non-starter for several reasons but it does position the enemies of Social Security to present a "more reasonable" solution to this non-existent problem. They can privatize SS by putting our money into insurance company annuities. This will give the illusion of income for life at the same time as putting our money into the market and the pockets of the wealthy. Of course when your annuity provider goes out of business because of their bad investments you are out of luck. "Free Enterprise" at it's best.

      •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)

        Our opening position should be "Lift the cap and lower retirement age to 55," and then negotiate from there.

        If you think people who work for a living should work longer and harder, stand up and tell Americans that's what you want.

        "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

        by Geiiga on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 09:38:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If the so-called means testing (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, JanL, OldDragon, zaka1, Bluefin

      only applied to the ultra-wealthy as the diarist proposed, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

      Jennifer Brunner for Governor of Ohio 2014

      by anastasia p on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:05:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It also wouldn't save much, if any, money. (0+ / 0-)

        The cost of administering the means test would be so close to the amount "saved" by withholding SS from wealthy people that it wouldn't be worth the trouble.  

        Renewable energy brings national security.      -6.25, -6.05

        by Calamity Jean on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:43:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Besides, Reagan already added a means test (12+ / 0-)

      http://www.socialsecurity.gov/...

      Thanks to Reagan, since 1983 the government taxes away a part of your social security income. And it isn't the rich who get hurt, because the tax kicks in at $25,000 of income for single people and $32,000 of income for married people.

      DO NOT advocate for more means tests! Believe me, it won't be the rich who get hurt.

      •  Tell me about it, damn it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        monkeybrainpolitics

        Effen St. Ronnie screwed us all six ways from Sunday.

        "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans Willkommen auf das Vierte Reich! Sie Angelegenheit nicht mehr.

        by Bluefin on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 02:12:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No means testing, yes to more progressive payout (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bluefin, monkeybrainpolitics

      SS benefits are currently calculated with a progressive formula based on "average indexed monthly earnings", AIME. Roughly, benefits are calculated this way:

      90% of average income up to $780
      32% of average income up to $781 and $4,586
      15% of average income over $4,586

      The current salary cap of $106,000 also sets the cap on the amount of benefit to be paid, as I understand it. So raising the salary cap will also raise the benefit paid, meaning people with upper income, who are least dependent on SS, receive a greater SS payment.

      Therefore, along with raising the salary cap, the payout formula should be made more progressive, say to 90/32/10 or by changing to four bend points instead of three.

      I'd make the argument that the formula should be more progressive whether or not the salary cap is raised.

    •  Raising the SS cap is also counter-productive to (0+ / 0-)

      a degree. The benefits are linked to your lifetime contributions so raising it just means higher future payouts for those affected by it. So be careful what y'all wish for.
      The benefits are somewhat progressive for lower income workers, somewhat regressive for higher ones.
      Today, in retrospect, I would have loved to have paid in more; since I always maxxed out, and would be getting more now per month on your premise. And people would be screaming about it.

      "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans Willkommen auf das Vierte Reich! Sie Angelegenheit nicht mehr.

      by Bluefin on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 02:08:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good. Pressure is good, AARP leaders are on (14+ / 0-)

    the money train.  Personally I wouldn't join if my life depended on it, well maybe, depends.  But I did send a short email this morning.  Something along the lines of making it my life's purpose to expose their hypocritical ways.  In a nice way of course.

    S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 11:11:30 PM PDT

    •  Well, as imperfect as organizations are (13+ / 0-)

      I believe strongly in strength in numbers.  I would prefer to work together and even fight together, while staying together, because I know in union there is strength.  I regard AARP as a form of retirees union.  But if they sell us out, I will look for another union to join.

      America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

      by monkeybrainpolitics on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 11:29:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No sweat. I'm eligible but did a little research (11+ / 0-)

        that didn't pass my morality test.  But I'm one of those antiestablishment dudes.  
        Either way, we need to watch them on this, it's already being used as a lever by both parties in the media.  

        S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 11:31:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Check out Wikipedia on AARP (5+ / 0-)

          You will learn that you are not dealing with a non-profit but instead with a private corporation named AARP Services, Inc.

          The thing is not even called by a  name, only initials.

          We have been had by slick advertising and low visibility.

          •  AARP is primarily an insurance and financial (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BigAlinWashSt

            services marketing operation. The non-profit AARP is a front for AARP Services, which generates almost a Billion dollars a year in revenues.   FromWikipedia:

            .......AARP Services Inc. offers: Medicare supplemental health insurance, discounts on prescription drugs and consumer goods, entertainment and travel packages, long-term care insurance and automobile, home and life insurance.[2] It provides quality control over the products and services made available by AARP-endorsed providers. According to AARP's 2008 Consolidated financials, it was paid  $652,000,000 in royalties from insurance companies that sold products referred by AARP. AARP also received an additional $120,000,000 for the ads placed in its publications.......

             

            Republican tears sustain me.

            by orson on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 10:43:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow, $722mil isn't 3.2 beer. (0+ / 0-)

              "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans Willkommen auf das Vierte Reich! Sie Angelegenheit nicht mehr.

              by Bluefin on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 02:16:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  A couple of my friends who turned (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928, zaka1, BigAlinWashSt

      50 keep getting the AARP crap in their mail.   You would think after the first ten mailings, they'd get the hint that the people aren't interested in joining, but no, they keep spending money trying to propagandize in order to get them to join.

      To every millionaire who decries they don't want their grandchildren paying for the deficit, I say: PAY MORE TAXES NOW and your grandkids won't have a deficit burden.

      by gooderservice on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 09:57:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Have you ever seen an AARP ad not for insurance? (9+ / 0-)

    Me neither.

    "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 12:18:35 AM PDT

  •  More Diplomatic Than I..... (15+ / 0-)

    My email to them yesterday was short & mean.  I said they were positioning themselves to be an insider in negotiations w/ Republicans, as well as signaling their willingness to compromise before negotiations have started.

    I reminded them of their deal making re Medicare Part D.  That was an utter disaster, & they lived to regret that screwy idea.  They've already made one mistake, another will not be tolerated.  

    If this is true, they have made a political miscalculation.

  •  I am not yet old enough (9+ / 0-)

    to join AARP, but will be in a few short years. They will not see my name on their roster if the support any plan to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 12:49:46 AM PDT

  •  Good letter! (7+ / 0-)

    I support first repealing the last tax cut that Congress Critters passed within the last couple of years.

    I support taxing the wealthy.

    I support taxing the corporations who have benefited from these unconstitutional and illegal wars and gotten tax breaks (to hire people, allegedly, but I haven't seen any increase in hiring in the US; they take the money overseas).  Corporations have made record-setting profits and paid zero or next to nothing in taxes.

    If corporations are "persons" by SCOTUS standards, they can damned well pay taxes on the record-setting profits!

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:19:17 AM PDT

  •  Your letter is great, but . . . (11+ / 0-)

    . . . it will have more effect here at DK than at AARP offices.

    In the past, AARP was a great organization, or at least it seemed to be. My parents were huge supporters 30 years ago. But it seems that since then it has been taken over by the same types of scamming weasels that have taken over the Democratic Party.

    It should be obvious that if Social Security benefits were maintained or even increased, nobody would be interested in AARP's bullshit insurance plans.

    •  I have been puzzled by (9+ / 0-)

      the ads for "affordable" term life insurance.  Usually by time you are in your 60s and up you no longer need life insurance.  The kids are grown, your house is paid for, and, well, the cost of insurance is so high and the payoff is both small and less needed to take care of your family if you die.  But maybe today it's a way to leave a little something so your kids can pay off their student loans or you can leave something behind as a nestegg for medical care for your spouse or other family members.  Our small life insurance coverage ends at age 60 and we have no plans to continue it past that.  Now medical insurance is another matter altogether.  We live in fear that one diagnosis could destroy two lifetimes of savings.  So I have told my wife my medical insurance has a "catastrophic illness" rider--if I get such a diagnosis she can expect me to end it before I destroy our savings.  And we already have plans to retire to one of the states that permit assisted suicide.  Even insurance cannot avoid terminal pain and suffering, or make it worthwhile.  I'd much rather that AARP helped seniors get decent end of life care with effective pain control or legal, assisted suicide than providing insurance that assures neither of these.  American attitudes toward pain medications (drugs) are just beyond belief, but I have been heartened by the progress of the medical marijuana movement.  Maybe as so many Americans age they will gain some sense and compassion--but so far, it seems to be the oldsters putting Republicans and keeping Republicans in power in many states.  Talk about voting against your own best interest . . .

      America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

      by monkeybrainpolitics on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 04:01:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The right wing (8+ / 0-)

      tried to infiltrate the Sierra Club leadership, and very nearly succeeded.  We are all people who have grown up expecting groups like AARP to be able to stay true to their original intent. We have to realize that we will have to fight for it.   I haven't given up on the AARP, but protecting it will require constant vigilance and involvement.  On the right there is enormous energy and relentless commitment to destroy the institutions we have relied upon - not just government, but instititutions like the AARP.  Thank you for your excellent letter.  I look forward to someone who will do an exposé on the AARP leadership. That will tell us a lot.

    •  Now that the acronym AARP doesn't stand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      for "...Retired Persons", neither does the organization, apparently.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 11:26:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now when I throw those AARP flyers in the trash (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, blue jersey mom, JanL, mimi9, zaka1

    I'll feel REALLY good about it.  They want me to join their organization?  HA!  I don't think so.

  •  good letter....I'd go ahead and (4+ / 0-)

    re-send that to your elected officials as well...the more people who read that, the better...you have a very good writing style that gets your point across very effectively.

  •  I would tax the rich AND lower retirement. (7+ / 0-)

    No means testing.

  •  That is an excellent letter. (11+ / 0-)

    I will be 60 this year, and blue jersey dad is 68. We are not AARP members because the organization seems to be more interested in selling supplemental insurance than in truly representing the interests of older Americans. I am also skeptical that any organization can represent the interests of all Americans over 50. Many of us in our 50s and early 60s can't find work. We face age discrimination in the workplace and/or forced early retirement. My mom is one of the old old. She is 92. Medicaid is a real issue for her. She is bedridden and has severe dementia and respiratory collapse. She weighs 66 pounds, and she is so fragile that two people have to use a sheet to move her. When and if her money runs out, she will have to rely on Medicaid for nursing home care. the majority of elderly people in nursing homes have their care provided by Medicaid, and AARP does not seem to be addressing this issue at all.

    Tipped and recommended.

    •  I so sorry (3+ / 0-)

      to hear about your Mom and you make an excellent point about Medicaid which they are hell bent on cutting as well.  Many Americans don't understand the spend down that people have to do in order to get nursing home care.  They keep changing the rules on us and our whole entire way of living from birth to death has been changed and torn to pieces since the 1980's.

      If you are digging yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging!

      by zaka1 on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 11:09:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Raise the wage cap? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue jersey mom, SoCalSal, COBALT1928

    Why wasn't raising the wage cap put on there?

    We could raise the cap, but not give more benefits to the higher paid.  Or maybe give them half benefits.

    •  What I meant (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, SoCalSal

      about giving half benefits was not to raise their benefits based on their Social Security wages. Those who make over the $106,800 wage cap woould get less additional benefits.  It is the only way it could work.

      The higher paid live 4 years longer than the average wage earner and they draw more money so it would be fair.

  •  Great diary. Great letter. (9+ / 0-)

    I do disagree with one point. Putting a means test on social security whould lead to it being branded as a welfare program. It would lead to loss of popular support, and eventually cuts.

     Notice that that Alan Simpson Erskine Bowles another super rich people trying to cut Social Security are in favor of means testing. This is strategic not philosophic.

     It also would also not save that much money. It might even cost more money that it would save, because of administration costs, and the fact the benefits are already capped.

  •  I sent my AARP card back (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, davidkc, COBALT1928, Bluefin

    I got to looking into AARP, no longer any meaning to that name other than initials now.

    I was actually dealing with AARP Services, Inc. a for profit enterprise and found, according to Wikipedia, AARP Services, Inc. now derives some $750,000,00 in income from insurance company royalties and advertising.

    I might be an old fool, but not that big of a fool.  It appears to me to be a scheme to make money off seniors, not advocate for them and certainly not to represent us.

    Like Yogi Berra says, 'You can observe a lot by watching.'

  •  This is a really important issue here in SE Asia!! (3+ / 0-)

    Most of the American ex-pats out here have no savings and live off of SS and/or military pension/disability payments. This part of the world attracts more drop outs than political activists, but we will see how vocal they are to save SS. I occassionally see some comments on our Yahoo Group, but the attitude seems to be that they are all waiting for the North Amercian residents to do the heavy lifting. Well, if we had more community spirit, we would not have left the country.

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 06:25:47 AM PDT

  •  End the wars first. (6+ / 0-)

    Aside from the fact that the huge regressive tax increase engineered by the Greenspan Commission in the 80s has made Social Security sound for decades into the future, it is appalling for Obama to even consider cuts while the military plays war games for profits in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    IF there is any need to cut the deficit, the FIRST things to be cut should be funding for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by elimination of corporate welfare.

    I'll be giving AARP a piece of my mind!

    Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

    by expatjourno on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:15:00 AM PDT

  •  why argue with aarp? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grrr, JanL, Bluefin

    (I burned my card in 2003, when they endorsed bush-crime-family's BIG-PHARMA-SCAM) and went over to Alliance for Retired Americans. From yesterday's newsletter:

    Coyle Stresses Disagreement with AARP Regarding Social Security Benefit Cuts

    A story ran in The Wall Street Journal today stating that AARP supports cutting Social Security benefits. “AARP does not speak for all seniors.  And on this topic probably not for many of their own members,” said Edward F. Coyle, Executive Director of the Alliance. “There is no ambiguity on where the Alliance for Retired Americans stands on Social Security - never has been, never will be. We are against Social Security benefit cuts for seniors,” he continued. Mr. Coyle made the remarks on a press conference call with reporters. A lengthy conference call with Alliance state presidents and leaders followed, and strategies were discussed for fighting back and dealing with the fallout from the AARP position.  The national Alliance vowed to distribute material  responding to the news as soon as possible. “This is a very real threat…the horse has left the barn.  We need to call our Senators and Representatives right away to express our extreme unhappiness with the prospect of Social Security cuts. We also need to reiterate that AARP does not speak for all seniors on this issue,” added Coyle. Look for a special e-mail later today describing what you can do right away. To see Mr. Coyle’s full statement, go to http://bit.ly/....

    you're invited to sign up with ARA
    so far they've proved themselves a far better advocate group for seniors...so far

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:30:03 AM PDT

  •  Repeal GPO/WEP (4+ / 0-)

    If you want Social Security to be fair, those grossly unfair laws must be repealed.

    For those who don't know, these are laws that affect people who have worked in non-social security jobs such as for federal or state government, but who also have worked enough in covered jobs to receive benefits. The laws drastically reduce social security benefits as a function of the size of the non-covered pension (state or federal). This is grossly unfair, since in effect, the size of the non-covered pension (based on the length of time you worked in that job) is reduced by the years of work in covered jobs. The most frequently affected group is teachers who may work for varying periods of time under different (i.e., covered/non-covered) contracts; in my case, I've worked in both federal and university research labs. (Note that both teachers and federal workers are probably the most common whipping boys when it comes to simplistic legislation to cut costs.)

    Here's NEA's page about this travesty:
    http://www.nea.org/...

    •  I've often wondered about the fairness of (0+ / 0-)

      that.
      It has no effect on my private corporate pension, other than a FIT tax penalty above a certain amount.

      "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans Willkommen auf das Vierte Reich! Sie Angelegenheit nicht mehr.

      by Bluefin on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 02:27:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The NEA is wrong (0+ / 0-)

      When I first heard about WEP, I went WHAT???? But then I got the SS downloadable calculator AnyPIA and did some comparisons. The bend points DO produce an unfairly high payout to people who did not pay into SS through much their career. The WEP reduction produces a fairer result.

      You can do the calculations yourself. My definition of fair was the ROI of "wage cohorts". A wage cohort for you is produced by inputing all your wages, including those from the non-SS years, and getting the SS benefit. Compare your non-reduced (before WEP) benefit and your after WEP benefit to this. I did the comparison by summing the total amount paid in and dividing the starting benefit by this amount paid in. After WEP was more fair to your wage cohort than before WEP.

      I encourage people affected by WEP to do their own case since the WEP formula has different results depending on the income level and pattern.

      •  That's not the correct comparison (0+ / 0-)

        in my opinion. If the SS benefit is supposed to be based on how much you pay in over such and such a time period, then the correct comparison is between how much SS benefit you will receive for the time you worked & paid in with all others who worked and paid in the same amount, in other words, with someone who did not work at all except for the time they paid into SS. If SS is to be comprehensible, then it shouldn't matter what you did during the time you weren't paying into SS: maybe you won the lottery and didn't need to work; maybe you lived overseas; maybe you were living on the street. What you did in those years shouldn't affect how much you receive from SS benefits; they should be based solely on what you paid in. There is no other retirement plan that does anything similar: for example, if you worked for the state of Texas as a school teacher (no SS) and then worked for the federal government (no SS), there would be no connection between how much pension you received from each source. That's how SS should work too. If it's unfair to ordinary SS beneficiaries somehow, then I submit that the solution is to change the formula in a way that doesn't single out one specific group of government worker and wack them all for it.

        A majority of all members of Congress have “co-sponsored” legislation to dump these laws, you know. The problem is that it never comes to the floor for a vote because it would increase the total outflow of SS funds, all going to (ew!) retired government workers.

        •  Your comparison is not valid (0+ / 0-)

          State as well as the federal CSRS do not have bend points and are defined pensions. They are usually a multiple of years. So if you worked 10 years in Texas and then in another non-SS system, in Texas you would receive the same for those ten years as your wage cohort for the same ten years and in your new system with new wage cohort also. But you would not get a bonus over your wage cohort just because you spent many years NOT paying into the Texas pension. That is the calculation I did - based on wage cohort.

          If you opted for a defined contribution, your wage cohort did not have the 6.2% of income available to invest in a similar system.

          The reason I base calculations on wage cohorts is because all the money that you had to put into another system was money that is not contributing to the long term fiscal picture of SS. Your wage matters in this. Let's say you paid into SS only between 1991 and 2000 and received $800 for those 10 years. Would it be "fair" that your wage cohort paid in for 40 years and received $600 for those same 10 years in the calculation?

          This is really off topic to the blog. I suggested you do the calculation based on your own wages for yourself. People resist my results but my results have me, myself, convinced.

  •  Too long (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    COBALT1928

    1---Your letter toAARP is too long.  Nobody there will read the whole thing.  If you can't express the essence of your message in ten words...well, you can--try harder.

    2---AARP is an insurance agency that does some advocacy for marketing reasons.  Keep that in mind when you suggest direction for their advocacy.

  •  What's the address you sent the letter to? (4+ / 0-)

    You should put that in the diary to make it easy for others to send similar letters.

    •  Go to the AARP webpage and follow the (0+ / 0-)

      "Contact us" link.

      America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

      by monkeybrainpolitics on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:18:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Tipping Point Toward America Turning (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    COBALT1928, Bluefin

    into a right winger country occurred several years ago.

    Ya, ya those will say that the majority of the country aren't right wing, just that it's been taken over by the right wing.

    But does it matter?

    America is right wing because those in power (i.e. the wealthy and their enablers (elected Democrats AND Republicans)) want it that way.

    The American public has sat back and let it happen.

    Just like all the benefits unions worked hard for and all the benefits Democrats worked hard for in the past were assumed to be available forever with no vigilance.

    Well this is what you get with no vigilance.

    So for all those here at DKOS who raise their voices when people are vigilant,  please STFU.  I'm talking about those who always say, "We don't have time to fight this issue now", "We can only expect a little, so only ask for a little", "My issue is more important than yours",  "Democrats need to speak with one voice no matter what (i.e. we can't work on more than one issue at a time)".  

    The latest in this scread are those who automatically accepted AARP's cry that they didn't cave on the gutting of Social Security.  AARP certainly did cave, but willingness to automatically accept a retraction is ignorant and is the opposite of being vigilant.  AARP has already given away their hand.  They must be considered suspect from this point forward.

     

  •  It will be a win win (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mimi9, OldDragon, COBALT1928, Bluefin

    for the republican leaders if they can get Obama to cut Social Security.  First the republican leaders would get their way and  second,  Obama would not be reelected.

    He will make losers out of many who draw or will draw Social Security.

  •  I also sent an email to AARP today. (3+ / 0-)

    Mine wasn't as nuanced as yours.  Basically if they are backing any of the Republican cuts, AARP does not have my back.  I've been a member for a long time since my husband was a lot older.

    It took me ten years to pay my way out of the debts we incurred during my husband's last illness and he had both Medicare and supplemental insurance. I retired three years after that, so you know how much I have left.

    I get occasional publications from AARP, but the mailings for their insurance are endless, so the questions about where the organization stands are in order. Now to see if any of our emails will make a difference.

  •  There is no doubt to give them the benefit of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    COBALT1928, Bluefin

    With all due respect, you're too reasonable. Don't assume AARP bumbled their way into this. This was timed to the debt ceiling negotiations and to give 0bama and the pre-compromisers cover to start cutting these entitlements.

    AARP has gone from a being membership organization to being a combination insurance broker and PAC. They likely assumed a 15-20% attrition in membership resulting from their announcement - but corporate contributions will more than make up for that.

    After their complicity during the Medicare part D "doughnut hole" debacle, this should not surprise anyone.

    It should be re-named AARS - American Association of Retired Suckers.

  •  I Am Sure Kay Doesn't Mean It. She's Such (4+ / 0-)

    a nice lady, she wouldn't cut seniors lifeline.  I am sure of it.

    Sen. Hutchison Introduces Legislation to Cut Social Security COLA
    Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is introducing legislation that would present an immediate 1% Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) cut and would raise the retirement age starting in 2016.  On Thursday, Sen. Hutchison announced she will introduce legislation to cut the COLA for current beneficiaries, wiping out this year’s COLA and slashing future COLA’s by 36%.  Her legislation would also raise the Social Security retirement age to 69; that alone would cut benefits of middle income workers by $2,000-$2,700 each year. Overall, the legislation would result in $2,400-$3,600 per year in TOTAL cuts in future benefits per middle income worker

    •  Presuming the worker even lived to 69. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928, kerplunk, Bluefin

      I'm assuming that part of the Republican plan is that far more people would die without ever seeing any of the money they had put into Social Security.

    •  I suspect that those COLA cuts would even be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      monkeybrainpolitics

      effective if the COLA is calculated at Zero (as in the last couple of years, falsely countering reality).
      Thereby reducing any SS benefits directly and cumulatively.
      I commented at length Friday on Kay Bees' conniving scheme.
      (BTW: beware former cheerleaders in politics: Dumbya, KB, Perry...)  

      "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans Willkommen auf das Vierte Reich! Sie Angelegenheit nicht mehr.

      by Bluefin on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 02:36:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not a member of AARP (4+ / 0-)

    because of that organization's actions the last time Social Security was on the butcher's block. AARP's leadership had to be shamed into standing firm against the Bush administration's privatization push. As I recall, the head honcho (whose name I'm blanking on) was faced with a pretty massive uprising from AARP's membership. Look's to me like the message didn't stick very well. At any rate, I won't trust AARP until the leadership there stops wanting to play footsie with the folks who want to kill Social Security and Medicare.

    My husband's been unemployed since January of 2009. He was hospitalized in October of that year for diabetes-related problems. We had no insurance. We now have no savings or 401(k). Social Security will be the only thing that keeps up out of poverty (not that we aren't pretty damned impoverished right now) when we're finally allowed to retire.

    The Republicans are so full of hubris that they think they can touch the Third Rail of Politics and come away unscathed. I think, I hope, they are wrong. I'm glad you're standing up to AARP's leadership on this. I'm doing what I can, with letters to my various Congress-critters, but I live in Texas and my Congress-critters are all crazy Republicans; they don't give a rat's ass what I think.

    The whole point of society is to be less unforgiving than nature. - Arthur D. Hlavaty

    by Alice Venturi on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 09:41:36 AM PDT

  •  Hutchison (R-TX) plan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, monkeybrainpolitics

    OK, here is what the GOP want to do, if they can't privatize social security - from Houston NEWS

    And, yes, this a re-do from a diary posted here 6/16 that I somehow missed, sorry!

    Under Sen. Hutchison’s proposal, anyone who is currently 58 years old or older would not be affected.  For everyone else, the normal retirement age would increase by three months each year, starting in 2016.  It would reach 67 by 2019, 68 by 2023, and 69 by 2027.  The Cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) would be computed as is under current law, and under Hutchison’s plan, would be reduced by one percent annually. According to the Social Security Administration’s Chief Actuary, Sen. Hutchison’s proposal decreases deficits by $416 billion over the next 10 years and will subtract a total of $7.2 trillion from the national debt by 2085.

    Why not just increase the salary level from which Social Security is deducted?

  •  You hit the nail on the head... (5+ / 0-)

    with your point regarding those of us approaching age 62 and not working.  The bigger problem that will occur in the future when there will be a growing number of seniors in poverty despite the fact their benefits are not cut.  There are a large number of us who have lost our jobs and the prospects for employment are dim at best.  We are forced to use our retirement savings up to 10-15 years earlier that we planned.  That means many of us will have exhausted our retirement funds 10-15 years BEFORE we expected to, leaving many in poverty.  This situation will NOT be prevalent until sometime in the future.  

    The only solution I see for this, is granting FULL SS benefits at 62 and Medicare enrollment at 55 for those in this situation.  To fund this idea, the income limit of $106,000 subject to SS payroll tax needs to be eliminated or raised to $250K at the minimum. A modest increase in the Medicare payroll tax is also required.

    "Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, a fanatical criminal" -- Logical Song -- Rick Davies & Roger Hodgson

    by Over50Lib on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 09:59:58 AM PDT

    •  Agree completely (0+ / 0-)

      Despite studies showing older workers are more reliable, serious, skilled and so on the age bias has really begun to be apparent.  But trying to nail down that discrimination for what it really is is hard to do.  Really makes me more sensitive to discrimination based on other distinctions--race, disability, gender, gender preferences, religion, etc.  Medicare for all is what I support, but starting by lowering age of access to 55 and then drop it a year every year until it reaches 0.  Phasing in national insurance that slowly but that regularly might also avoid shocks to the system that make those already on the benefit resistant to letting others in--the current situation with retirees on Medicare.

      America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

      by monkeybrainpolitics on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:33:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good letter, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluefin

    good diary.  

    I haven't joined AARP, I keep shredding the applications and crap they send, because I was financially wiped out by our wonder medical system due to a pre-existing condition that didn't wait a year before it acted up because healthcare insurance companies said it couldn't.  But it did anyway and I was financially punished.  That little extra a month that would go to AARP needs to go toward food, gas, and keeping a roof over my head.

    AARP is probably desperate to get additional funds because so many of us have little or no income already because most of our working years have been under Republican rule taking bit by bit away from us until we have almost nothing and can no longer support organizations like AARP.  They are only supporting the Republicans because, in this country, the road with Republicans is paved with gold and money they have stolen from the middle class.

    If you are digging yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging!

    by zaka1 on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 10:47:18 AM PDT

  •  Are all you folks unaware of the amount (3+ / 0-)

    of promotion of the ACA that AARP did? They explained over and over to their members what was in the health reform bill (and that it didn't involve death panels) and lobbied in support.

    Do you think that they were threatened by the House Republicans for no reason?

    I wonder if they are now intimidated ... seeing how ACORN was brought down and Planned Parenthood attacked and partially defunded.

    Conservation! Because the cheapest energy is the energy you don't use.

    by ohiolibrarian on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 11:02:32 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for this. It was THE major reason (0+ / 0-)

      I joined in 2010, in addition to the resistance they put up to Bush and earlier cutting efforts.  I really did not like Medicare Part D and stayed out of AARP until it became clearer that they supported ACA and other moves toward a national healthcare system.  You certainly have a point about Republicans effectiveness in hitting ACORN and PP.  Our next charity to support is Planned Parenthood.  Democrats who can do so should deliberately step up support for any organization Republicans target.  

      America needs a UNION NEWS channel. We (unions) have the money, we have the talent. Don't buy 30 second time slots on corporate media, union leaders; fund your own cable news channel and tell the real story 24/7/365

      by monkeybrainpolitics on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:37:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't waste your time sending emails to AARP (0+ / 0-)

    Wake up.

    Can't you see that the AARP is nothing but an insurance selling scam with a veneer of social responsibility? It  is completely controlled by Bill Novelli so your emails will get a PR spin response but nothing will change.

    The AARP is one of the biggest obstacles to Americans getting real single payer health care because that would cut off the millions they get from their insurance commissions.

    So, If you really want to make changes to AARP, don't send them emails, send them your cutup membership card...like I did.

  •  Don't waste your time sending emails to AARP (0+ / 0-)

    Wake up.

    Can't you see that the AARP is nothing but an insurance selling scam with a veneer of social responsibility? It  is completely controlled by Bill Novelli so your emails will get a PR spin response but nothing will change.

    The AARP is one of the biggest obstacles to Americans getting real single payer health care because that would cut off the millions they get from their insurance commissions.

    So, If you really want to make changes to AARP, don't send them emails, send them your cutup membership card...like I did.

  •  Sorry about the double posting (0+ / 0-)

    It wasn't deliberate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site