Load of Pap from AARP

Washington-based columnist Lynn Sweet and her heavyweight special interest cronies at AARP have injected themselves into the Illinois 8th race. Incumbent Bean has charged that her challenger David McSweeney has distorted Bean's AARP-backed position on Social Security. McSweeney is absolutely right---the loaded questions peddled by AARP and swallowed unquestioningly by Bean are a load of pap.

Any reasonably sentient adult still in full possession of their faculties concluded long ago that Social Security is an empty promise to millions.

Of course, if you are 50-55 or over right now you are probably covered, and if you are the standard Democrat-punt-the-problem-down-the-line AARP you don't care.

I started getting the AARP junk mail a couple of years ago when I turned 50. Here's an alternative group that gives straightforward and useful information. Boomers, especially younger ones in their 40's, need to SAVE NOW, Don't Delay. The current system is especially harmful to women, also here. It also discriminates against African-Americans, who have lower life-expectancy. NY Sun:

The Social Security program also contributes to the gap in wealth between blacks and whites in America. "Because Social Security taxes squeeze out other forms of saving and investment, especially for low-income workers, many African Americans are unable to accumulate real wealth," writes the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, Michael Tanner. "And, since Social Security benefits are not inheritable, that wealth inequity is compounded from generation to generation."

And, read the full IWF report, "Social Insecurity". We need to start now to reform Social Security to avoid the crushing tax burden our children and grandchildren will bear, as there are fewer of them to support upcoming retirees. In fact, reform is the only way to ensure benefits will be there for all.

AARP is also hardly a disinterested party in the ongoing debate. This from the last time the issue heated up: Business Week:

Some also see AARP's opposition to diverting Social Security funds to private accounts -- which it criticizes as too risky -- as the height of hypocrisy. Says American Enterprise Institute scholar James K. Glassman: "They are selling mutual funds, which by any conventional standard are far riskier than anything anybody has contemplated" for Social Security.

At the same time, AARP's role in the Social Security debate has focused new attention on the hundreds of millions of dollars the group makes by endorsing and co-branding health insurance, financial products, and travel services that are sold to its members. Some of those products suffer from lackluster performance....

WSJ:

It's also worth mentioning the hypocrisy of AARP's deriding diversified bond and stock investment as too "risky" in other ads, while at the same time profiting by putting its brandname on various investment funds of its own. AARP sells 38 mutual funds, and makes north of $300 million annually by such co-branding of financial products.

This kind of financial muscle--along with the group's semi-plausible claim to represent 35 million seniors who join for the discounts--allows AARP to sit across the table from its interlocutors at the White House and pretend to be sincere about its desire for compromise. And it's almost enough to make us long for an intrepid antitrust lawyer to take on the senior lobby. One thing's for sure: We're never going to have a reasonable debate about policies for an aging society as long as AARP has an effective monopoly on that role.

We need a fresh and honest approach on the issue. So let's toss the AARP letters in the recycling.

And send McSweeney to Washington.