
image by Dean Mougianis
The Wall Street Journal recently reported the AARP will support benefit cuts to Social Security. The AARP responded by saying that “our position has not changed on Social Security.”
That’s actually true. For years, the AARP has been open to cutting Social Security benefits. Below is the proof of AARP’s clear willingness cut Social Security.
Please like this post on Facebook and share it with your friends and family. If you haven’t yet, sign our petition to pledge to protect Social Security from the AARP.
1. AARP did not deny the Wall Street Journal’s report; its response even showed the AARP is open to “changes in benefits.”
In the Wall Street Journal article, AARP policy director John Rother was clear that he’s willing to support Social Security benefit cuts, saying, “The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens.” Current AARP CEO A. Barry Rand called the WSJ piece inaccurate and misleading, but didn’t clarify what he thought was inaccurate. Rand’s statement even reiterated AARP’s belief that “changes” need to be made to Social Security benefits.
Sources: Wall Street Journal, 6/17/11; Huffington Post, 6/17/11
2. AARP officials admitted the organization was discussing benefit cuts for “months” with the Wall Street Journal.
While trying to spin the AARP’s exposed to scheme to support Social Security cuts, AARP legislative director David Certner said the AARP was “never seeking this kind of publicity” for its position. Certner said AARP officials had discussed benefit changes for “months” with the Wall Street Journal.
Source: Politico, 6/21/11
3. AARP was willing to raise the retirement age during George W. Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security in 2005.
Then-AARP CEO William Novellli put raising the retirement age “on the table” in 2005.
“‘There’s a lot of opportunity for common ground. If we could get the private accounts, the carve-outs, out of the way I think we could get to solvency fairly quickly.’ That includes discussion over an increase in the retirement age, said Novelli. ‘We are willing to consider it,’ he said. ‘It ought to be on the table.’”
Source: Bloomberg News, 4/11/05
4. In 2005, AARP CEO William Novelli called adjusting benefits a “reasonable step.”
“’Social Security does not need a radical overhaul,’ AARP Chief Executive Officer William Novelli said in speech at the National Press Club. ‘Reasonable steps such as these, including possibly adjusting benefits, are enough to strengthen Social Security for the long term.’”
Source: Reuters, 2/9/05
5. An AARP memo suggested “changes in benefits” as a solution for “Social Security solvency.”
An AARP official provided the Huffington Post a 2005 memo that outlined the organization’s position on Social Security. The document shows the AARP offered “changes in benefits” as a positive position for the organization to take in the Social Security fight at the time.
Source: Huffington Post, 6/21/11
6. An AARP official flippantly dismissed those who opposed Social Security cuts.
AARP policy director John Rother dismissed people who said they wouldn’t support Social Security cuts. “I know all these people personally and they’ll say we have to be hard line now to influence the debate…I kind of take it with a grain of salt, these emphatic statements,” Rother said.
Source: Wall Street Journal, 8/20/10
Protect Social Security from AARP – sign the pledge to fight for Social Security benefits.




50 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
There must be quite a great deal of coin awaiting AARP to stand by and destroy SS for the sake of privatizing SS. Wonder what their “cut” is to use their “brand” to pitch, “This is an AARP endorsed fund, so you know your money is safe for retirement…”
AARP should lose their non-profit status for their non-profit side of the operations.
That they succeeded in ‘casting doubt’ about Social Security, and by doing so, contributed to the voices of the Peterson astroturfing and lobbying against all of our social programs, makes AARP a truly regressive, negative force. They are pitting the full strength of their organizational brand against the interests of every American citizen.
In my viewing area (Boston) AARP is running ads against cutting social security. Wish they would make up their mind on this.
AARP sent me yet another membership offer by mail. Sent it back empty.
Rother is clearly a Very Serious Person. And a Playa. As in Son of a Beech.
But the poor guy can’t decide whether he wants to be at the table or on deck when the villagers sail the SS Social Security out into the bay and scuttle her.
They’re actually not OPPOSING Social Security cuts, and won’t say that they do. What they’re saying is “we should cut other shit first.”
Well, that’s a great sentiment, but doesn’t draw a line in the sand over a “grand bargain.”
Why is everyone talking about SS cuts in order to ensure it’s solvency.
Just raise the payroll taxes and the problem fixes itself.
Payroll tax rates for social security have been raised 2 dozen times between 1935 and 1990, and not once since 1990.
Thanks for staying on top of this important issue and keeping us informed. More citizens need to be aware of the perfidy of AARP, which too many Seniors & others trust to be a voice in support of their needs. Emphatically not true. I agree that whatever 501(c)(3) status AARP has should be revoked immediately. AARP is solely & only representing the super wealthy. Eff ‘em.
So is the sense that AARP is acting against the wishes of its members? Again, based on how union issues have been playing out, the older generation has not fought to keep their benefits for the next. On the contrary, they are quick to go to two tiers in order to maintain their benefits. This has not played out yet for Social Security. But if you took corporate money out of the equation, is defending Social Security for future generations really a line in the sand for current seniors? Personally, I have not seen that it is.
Thank you for that info. I quite agree with you, as do many/most/all who blog here regularly. There is no over-arching “problem” with Soc Sec. It’s made up hype in order to try to *privatize* Soc Sec, so that the greedheads on Wall ST – you know: the sociopaths who crashed the economy by YOU had to bail them out – can get their grubby greedy theiving mitts on MORE of your money.
No thanks! What’s being pushed is a racket to, yet again, benefit the super wealthy off of the backs of hard-working middle & working class US citizens.
That’s why those who are younger need to stay on top of this issue, be aware, and do whatever possible to fight the insidiousness of organizations like AARP.
I quite agree that many of the elderly appear to not give a stuff about anyone younger than them, and I have definitely experienced that attitude up close & personal with many seniors that I know through my parents. It’s not a pretty sight. I guess the message is: be aware of what’s going on and be prepared to fight for YOUR rights… cuz not too many others are going to do it for you.
Forgot to wipe your butt with it, eh?
Sure, sure. Afterall, they hawk up all that insurance and get kick backs on every new sign up from their partnered groups. They are not at all interested in what is best for their members. It is all about money and corporate support.
I bet big Pharma is in love with them since the donut hole legislation. Seniors have been paying outta sight insurance premiums for drug insurance that has only caused the drug corps to continue price increases!
Except I don’t think anyones “rights” are involved.
Which right do you feel is not involved?
I have a right to social security. I have a right to the same benefits my parents are just now starting to receive. And I want my son to expect the same damned thing in 50 years, to think of it as his right after having paid into the same system.
Every citizen has the right to be secure in their person and belongings. They do not have to succumb to an entity that will take their homes and wealth from them for over priced and inferior service!
Zactly! We paid for it and it belongs to us the people. Not the Koch brothers or any other group of crazies trying to buy up legislation against the citizens.
The good times that the self-satisfied children of the Galtian Übermenschen have been taught to think of as being their right, on the other hand, is not a “right.”
I agree on that tax issue for AARP. They are not a non-profit group. They are profiting mightily on seniors, especially since the Part-D legislation that Bush ushered in.
Gotta love the Ad for AARP insurance on the front page at FDL. NOw I know it takes an effort to cull the ads shown (I do it for a number of sites) but surely FDL should put it’s money where it’s mouth is and cull those damn AARP ads.
PS if you do not know how to do it please contact me directly and I will explain the ver simple proceedure.
The Supreme Court just ruled that it is against free speech for Doctors to refuse to allow drug companies to see what they prescribe!
I wonder if the public can see what the doctors prescribe for the members of the court and our congress?
You should click on the ad, then tell them hell no by clicking out!
Like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility–and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn.
Congress took an oath of office. They can and do change the rules and so the people kick their butts out of office and shame them as they are due. The entitlement programs have absolutely NOTHING to do with our deficit/debt. NOTHING!
The only reason the whackos that want to get rid of SS and Medicare are pushing it is to enrich themselves. I have no idea how old you are or how you make a living, but I can tell you that nobody that makes under a million a year is happy with this game to take away the security of the people that paid for it.
Thanks for reminding us…
Jane, the PayPal link is broken on the contributions page that readers see after signing the petition to AARP.
Here’s the secure page:
https://secure.firedoglake.com/page/contribute/aarp_cuts
The “donate via PayPal” link is at the end of the fourth graf from the top. It’s a long encryption, so I won’t paste it in here. I would like to send some money if that link can be fixed.
AARP policy director John Rother dismissed people who said they wouldn’t support Social Security cuts. “I know all these people personally and they’ll say we have to be hard line now to influence the debate…I kind of take it with a grain of salt, these emphatic statements,” Rother said.
So this guy know evey American who is opposed to SS cuts? And he thinks those people are full of it? Guess the millions of Americans who are opposed to the cuts don’t count! We have the Koch Bros. Pete Peterson, AARP the GOP and key Dems (including Obama) who can’t wait to screw us with cuts,,,I will say this again: we are on our own
Why should FDL cut AARP ads? Shouldn’t AARP being cutting its ads from FDL? It says a lot about FDL that they’ll speak out against someone who’s running ads on their site.
I sort of agree, but I am sure there is someplace that FDL draws the line, some organization they would not accept an ad from. AARP either does or does not fall into that category.
They are network ads that come through Google. We don’t approve the ads coming through, they just appear, usually triggered in google code (not ours) by keywords.
I was told that ads come in batches and that is where the control switch stops working. I don’t know if that is the facts or not, but a blog has to do something to pay the bills.
I’m not arguing for cuts to SS, see my #7 above. I just pointed out that it’s not a “right”.
And that’s not my opinion, the Supreme Court has ruled on it.
AARP hasn’t broken any laws. Its position in this case is wrong, though I’m not so sure it rises to the level of immoral. FDL is shining light on what AARP has been saying on an important issue and calling them out for it. If AARP wants to pay FDL in the process, what’s the problem? On the other hand, if I were to find out that FDL is paying AARP for anything, I’d have to seriously think twice before ever making a contribution to FDL again.
Our advertising policy, stated many times, is the same as every other major blog (Atrios, Kos etc), articulated by Atrios in 2006:
Anyone who has been around here for any length of time knows that well. If it’s obscene, racist, eliminationinst,* or promotes criminal activity, let us know. Other than that, we’re not in the business of endorsing advertisers, and refusing ads by a particular advertiser means we endorse the others. Since we don’t intend to that, we won’t be nuking ads just because people don’t like the advertisers. It sets a dangerous precedent to cross editorial and advertising boundaries, as I would hope people concerned with such things would be aware of.
* this comment was edited for clarity at the request of a commenter, see #43 below
I’d pay to run ads on AARP’s website tomorrow telling people the truth about AARP’s position on Social Security, and telling members to burn their AARP card. They’d never accept them, so no danger of that happening.
The Supreme Court is a joke! They ruled you don’t have a right to privacy too.
Republican Congressmen Launch Attack on AARP, Challenge Non-Profit Status
House Ways & Means members release investigative report, send letter to IRS
April 11, 2011 – Three Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee have launched an attack on AARP, including the release of a report focusing on the massive amount of money the organization earns from insurance companies, and sending a letter last Friday to the Internal Revenue Service asking for an investigation of AARP’s non-profit tax status.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/2011/20110411-RepublicanCongressmen.htm
I am not sure where to confirm this and it is old data but it seems these people running the AARP show don’t really have to worry about their Social Security:
William D. Novelli, ex-CEO of AARP: $1,005,380
February 19, 2010 –
William D. Novelli, who resigned as CEO in March 2009, was just one of 18 AARP executives who were paid more than $300,000 in 2008.
Tax records show Novelli’s total compensation topped $1 million that year with the inclusion of $207,000 in deferred pay. Novelli’s pay package was a recent topic of debate on Capitol Hill, where some congressmen complained that AARP executives would benefit personally from proposed health care reforms.
Other AARP execs pulling down $300,000 or more were:
$625,857 Thomas C. Nelson
$452,667 Lin MacMaster (includes a $172,000 severance payment)
$421,679 Nancy A. Leamond
$417,246 Emilio Pardo
$409,560 Joan S. Wise
$398,432 Robert R. Hagans Jr.
$375,449 Shereen G. Remez
$361,352 John C. Rother
$358,222 Kevin J. Donnellan
$351,278 Ellen Hollander
$350,836 Hugh Delehanty
$335,120 David Sloane
$334,330 Harroll Backus
$332,865 Nancy Smith
$328,138 Susan Reinhard
$327,293 Matthew Rosser
$324,219 Matthew Mitchell
All told, these 17 executives pocketed $843,697 in bonus and incentive pay in 2008, AARP reported.
Source: http://www.atlantaunfiltered.com/2010/02/19/william-d-novelli-ex-ceo-of-aarp-1005380/
Can anyone verify this information to vilify these wealthy barons making decisions for the middle class and poor retirees?
We don’t censor any ads that come across the site. Once we make a determination about one advertiser, we have to apply a similar filter to others. The best thing is to allow people to advertise as they wish, pulling out only visually jarring or annoying ads.
Jane says it would be pulled if it were obscene or promotes criminal activity. Visually jarring or annoying is a slightly different standard. But the Atrios policy Jane cites also includes wiggle room, including racism. There are ads FDL would pull, and AARP is not one of them. I think that is okay. But Atrios, Jane, and Michael Whitney are saying slightly different things.
No we’re not. I consider racism and eliminationist rhetoric and imagery “obscene.” I’ve said it many many times when explaining our advertising policy. Would it make you happier if I edit my comment to spell that out? I’ll be happy to.
There you go. I hope this correction satisfies you and that you feel it was a necessary and good use of time.
Fair enough! Thanks.
No thanks. If obscenity includes racism, homophobia, etc., that makes sense. I do happen to believe there are other ads that would be pulled, even if they do not technically fall into one of these categories, that there is some discretion and should be. But that can only unfold over time. I get why that discretion is not being used for AARP.
Well, now that we’ve cleared up FDL’s position on filtering/not filtering advertisements on the site…
AARP is still doing its mealy-mouthed dance regarding Social Security cuts.
AARP, you suck.
I keep waiting for AARP to clarify that they mean an increase in the retirement age 30 or more years out from now – something logical and indeed unavoidable given mortality improvements and a desire to not increase the payroll tax. But they do not clarify – and indeed come out with a Simpson/Koch/GOP type ad about a few thousand spent on an animal reaction research project.
OK – United Health has started to pull strings – and the sad part is the fact our Democratic Party leaders, having no backbone, now bend to the new wind that AARP blew their way. So Obama has the cover he wanted – and all the quotes about FDR telling the party back in the 30′s that he wanted to do some progressive things but needed the party members to “make me do it” are not going to change the situation as long as Obama is President. We need to get active – but active in getting stronger Democrats elected.
About time – pretending the commissions United Health pays are really royalties is something only a GOP Tea Party/Bush/Cheney type can endorse.
two tiers being agreed to by unions was forced by younger workers being not interested (too cheap?) to pay dues and have a union, resulting in those $14 an hour non-union jobs at Toyota and Honda and the new Volkswagon plant in the US. Union jobs go to non-union states or overseas if two tiers were not agreed to.
Not a Seniors versus the young problem – it is a no protection for unions problem.