MINNEAPOLIS – Liberals and retirement security advocates were alarmed to read a story today that the AARP has dropped its objection to Social Security benefit cuts. They have since tried to clarify the issue by saying their position hadn’t changed, but the clarification was not in a reassuring way: they basically said they always allowed for benefit cuts as part of a balanced solution. “It has … 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,” said CEO A. Barry Rand.
The oddest part of this story was that Social Security seemed to be out of the mix in the Biden deficit talks. This has alarmed advocates, who think that AARP may have put this back up for discussion. Eric Kingson said he wants to burn his AARP card.
I asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz about all this today, as she greeted attendees at Netroots Nation. She was fairly blunt. “I will tell you that benefit cuts are not on the table,” she said. “They’re not on the table for me and they’re not on the table for our party in the House.”
Wasserman Schultz was not totally familiar with AARP’s position, but she stressed that Social Security “will be solvent until long after I retire, and I’m 44.” She said that in order to get added years of solvency, you could put together a solution if there were two willing sides, but Republicans have shown no evidence that they want to enter into that discussion in anything but a one-sided way.
But she came back again to the main point, that “benefit cuts are off the table” as Democrats work to preserve the long-term health safety net. Coming from the DNC Chair, that means at least something.
Sen. Mark Begich also commented on this. He showed me on his Blackberry the clarification statement from the AARP. “We’re clear, as Senate Democrats, that it’s not part of the deficit discussion,” he said. “It’s a mathematical issue, and we can resolve that. But it’s not a part of the deficit.” He added that Democrats have to be careful with cannibalizing the payroll tax cut, which leads to an impression that Social Security funding does come out of general revenue, which could bring it more into the light as a budget issue.
To be clear, AARP stressed as well that Social Security should not be used for deficit reduction, and that the two issues, the budget and Social Security, should be separate. But it’s better to hear the decision makers saying the same thing.
I’ll put AARP’s full clarification statement on the flip.
“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.”






38 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Sounds like HCR redux with how the Senate lead the way and then the House being good Democrats went along even if it meant violating their own written pledges.
I wouldn’t trust one word coming out of any “democrat” these days. It seems pretty clear that they are far more concerned with lining their own pockets than with the speaking the truth. Soc. Sec. needs but one alteration, the lifting of the income ceiling, Not very complicated, supported by over 80% of Americans.
Of course expecting the bloody Dems to demand the rich to pay their “fair share” is like expecting the tooth fairy to leave $100 for a molar.
its GREEK to me…fukkerz
Yeah whatever. She’ll get in line when GW Bush III snaps his fingers. I get it now, Obama is Bush with a smiling face and pseudo intellectual demeanor. No wonder they tapped Chicago, land of the slimy hucksters.
What happened to the old cliche: “We won’t pass the buck and make future generations pay”?
.
Cannibals.
AARP is but another part of the ‘veal pen’; a front job for insurance companies. And what so many of their members don’t realize is they can actually get better rates for all the insurance products AARP endorses by shopping on their own.
Yeah – the Dems are completely credible. If the DNC says it, etc.
/lulz
In addition to signing the petition, if you are and AARP member (members only, no funny business), call their 888 number, give your membership information, and when the nice callcenter worker asks how they can help you, say firmly “Fire John Rother”. When they spout out the official position, say that since there is confusion, the best way to clear it up would be to summarily fire John Rother.
They’re not really in the “veal pen” because they make no pretense of supporting Democratic or progressive causes–nor of the elderly in general. Their constituency is “retired people”, which if you read their publications tends to mean middle- and upper-middle class. But they have advocated for government benefits for retired people, including Medicare and improvements to Social Security. So they have the brand of supporting Social Security unequivocally. John Rother has seriously damaged that brand.
Being able to register my opinion and have it taken a little more seriously is one of the benefits of the relative inexpensive dues.
We already went through this with the “public option”. It’s in! It’s out! It’s in the Twilight Zone!
If it were out, the President would have killed it dead. He could have stood up and said, “There is nothing wrong with Social Security that we need to deal with now. If you send me a bill with Social Security changes I will veto it.” He didn’t, and he won’t.
He is not on our side. He is working for the other side, and the Congress will do what they are told.
Where have I seen that name before . . . ?
Ayn Barry Obama Rand. OMG! (:>
And there’s the rub–those who are NOT near-term or current beneficiaries begin to ask themselves why they are paying as much as the previous generation and receiving lower benefits in return. It’s a guaranteed way to divide and conquer–turn the workers paying and waiting to retire against Social Security and it dies, guaranteed.
EDIT: Sorry, this should not have been a reply to ducktree.
This has become quite evident over recent years, a so-called PAC for elderly Americans rights that has evolved into just another insurance parasite that is profiting much more from government support than average Social Security recipients !
Bingo!.
but yet the sycophants will buy the BS she is selling.Remember who it’s coming from,a DNC corruptard,who dissuaded her party(DNC) from running candidates against her GOP congress friends in Florida.
The bold faced corruption is so pervasive,do you really think you can take these people’s word on anything.It’s simple,If they say “up” expect “down”.
Debbie can say what she wants, the Republicans control the House and her vote will not matter.
Since we are fighting for the very existence of Social Security and the few remaining social safety nets remaining, why is no one pointing out how much worse this
recessiondepression would be if it were not for the New Deal constructs of Social Security and the FDIC? How many more people would be struggling to survive without their monthly SS check or their lost savings from the hundreds of banks that have failed? How many more would have died without Medicare?We need to not just talk dollars but the impact on human lives. How many new members does AARP think it will get if new seniors need all their money just to buy cat food and medicine from reduced SS benefits?
Actually, I’m glad you bring this up. I was at my vet’s office last weekend getting my dogs’ vaccinations updated and overheard one of the technicians (who appeared to be in her early 30′s) behind the counter complaining about her payroll taxes going into Social Security and fearing that it wouldn’t be there for her at retirement. Her suggested solution was to keep that money herself and invest it in something like an IRA. I kept thinking to myself about how much accrued interest I’ve lost in my IRAs and 401(k) from the economic collapse and thought “yeah, sure sweety, that’ll work for ya.”
Pawlenty’s Plan:
50% of the tax cut benefit goes to the top 1%.
Now let me think. 50%. 1%.
50%. 1%
“…Almost half of the benefits would flow to taxpayers in the top 1 percent of income distribution…”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html
Pawlenty for them, not for us.
https://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
Well, I will not do what I’m told. They can cut Social Security. They will wait till Hell freezes over to get me to vote to affirm their vote.
Just stop voting for people who vote against you on the big issues. Deny them your vote. If enough people just say no, they will all go down in defeat and would we miss more than a handful of them?
Where is Wasserman-Schultz from? Florida……home of millions upon millions of retirees. What would you expect to come out of her piehole? She has her head so far up Obama’s butt that she would have a hard time seeing what is and isn’t off the table.
As to my own, the
“Pawlenty for them, not for us”
is, I guess, a little
like Biff Tannin’s “make like a tree and get our of here”
(as in instead of make like a tree and leave.)
So make the
“Pawlenty for them, not for us”
Pawlenty for them, little for us.
Bonne journee
Did DNC Chair Wasserman-Shultz mention Howard Dean by chance, the guy who’s been run out of the Democratic Party for daring to do a good job in her position?
“(Wasserman Schultz) said that in order to get added years of solvency, you could put together a solution if there were two willing sides, but Republicans have shown no evidence that they want to enter into that discussion in anything but a one-sided way….”
Why doesn’t ANYONE remind these clowns from 2008-2010 it didn’t matter what the Republicans wanted AND the Democratic Congress did NOTHING on this or any other significant issue!
“Off the table” – isn’t that Obama-talk for “we negotiated that away behind closed WH doors already”?
I agree with you.
The AARP statement looks more like a trial balloon to me and I don’t trust the Democratic leadership one bit. They lie like dogs.
She does not give a shit. She considers republicans her friends. Debbie, I consider them scum.
And why would anybody actually believe a word she or any DC Democrat says?
Lets face it – we are all waiting to see how Obama and the Corporate owned Dems sell us out. The only reason they haven’t done it so far is fear of what we will do. Even AARP, which would happily sell out Social Security and Medicare to curry favor with the Democratic Establishment, fears our response. Make ‘em sweat as long as possible – they will sell us out in the long term but the harder it is for them the less damage they will do.
2 scenarios:
1. 0-$ell-0ut and his clintonian sell out scum, AND the political pathetics, get their asses handed to them next year, so they sell us out in the lame duck.
2. bachmann-pawlenty-hunstman-palin manage to lose, and 0-$ell-0ut, his clintonian sell out scum, AND the political pathetics sell us out.
3. 0-$ell-0ut, his clintonian sell out scum, AND the political pathetics sell us out for some other permutation of bullshit reasons.
4. … ooops! I said “2 scenarios” and I’ve already lost count! silly moi.
rmm.
the responses on this thread have helped me rise up to some more sophisticated thinking and thought, I think, cuz …
as soon as I saw & grokked the headline I thought “fucking liar”
rmm.
I’d be more interested in her response if the Dems were still in charge of the House.
Has anyone put together any numbers on exactly how much of the future problem would be fixed by removing the cap on FICA taxes so that 100% of income is taxed for social security?
And, would this include an explanation of how the benefits paid to a retiree are based on the income that was taxed. This meaning that those who would start paying more in taxes because their income is over the $106,000 that is currently the cap would receive higher benefits.
If this would solve 100% of the future problem, why would be be talking about any other alternative than just removing the cap. It’s plain and simple the way to go. Social Security must, by law, be self funding. And, the funding mechanism is FICA taxes.
Now, if removing the cap doesn’t completely solve the future problem, seems to me that the logical resolution would be to cap the benefits for those who paid on incomes over $106,000 at what ever level required to fix the problem. They should get a minimum of what they would have received for their contributions up to $106,000. But, any additional benefits they receive should only be what can be afforded without contributing to the system’s solvency issue.
Hello everybody,the good shoping place,the new season approaching,
welcome to this site:=== http://globalsell.org/ ===-
shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
UGG BOOT $50
???
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
New era cap $9
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18.prada,
We accept payment PYAPAL.
Free Shipping.
You must not miss it!
Thank you!
=== http://globalsell.org/ ===-
=== http://globalsell.org/ ===
Correct. Wasserman-Schulz is lying through her teeth.
MODERATORS: please remove this ad.
This contains a couple of estimates.
And heeeeeeeere’s Debbie on Super-PACs:
DNC Chair: Sorry Russ, Dems Are All-In On Anonymous Campaign Funds LINK.
Bingo!!
One suggestion: Don’t hold your breath.
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,welcome to
=== http://globalsell.org/ ===
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All thepr oducts are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the pay pal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.
free shipping accept the pay pal
SOCCER JERSEY 16
nike sh ox $35
Christan Audigier bikini $16
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Sunglasses Oakey,coach,gucci $12
Handbags(Coach gucci juicy lv) $31
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
=== http://globalsell.org/ ===