Many years ago, I joined AARP. Even though I had opted out of receiving special offers from their partners, a virtual rainforest flooded my mailbox, with offers for everything from Depends to senior vacation retreats. I am on the “do not call list”. Nevertheless I was harassed half to insanity with telephone solicitors that said they have can call me, because they had a “business relationship” with me as “AARP partners”. I complained long and loud to AARP, but they were insensitive to my needs. It seemed apparent to me that AARP was far more interested in marketing to me than representing or informing me. AARP betrayed me by supporting the Bush Part D plan without demanding that US made drugs, imported from Canada, be allowed. I tore up my membership card and mailed them the pieces. Now they have betrayed senior citizens again.

AARP, the powerful lobby for older Americans that has been seen as one of the leading opponents of Social Security benefit cuts, said on Friday that it was open to modest reductions in benefits for future recipients. The group’s stance, which generated quick reaction from all sides because of its powerful voice on the issue, could provide added ammunition to fiscal conservatives who have sought unsuccessfully to restructure Social Security and chip away at the benefits it promises older Americans. “Our goal is to limit any changes in benefits,” John Rother, AARP’s policy chief, said in a telephone interview, “but we also want to see the system made solvent.” Mr. Rother said the group’s stance on possible cuts, which was first reported in The Wall Street Journal in Friday’s editions, should be seen less as a major change in position than as a reflection of the political and financial realities facing the Social Security system and the country as a whole. “You have to look at all the tradeoffs,” Mr. Rother said, “and what we’re trying to do is engage the American public in that debate.” He made clear that the group’s willingness to discuss cuts comes with conditions: Reductions in benefits should be “minimal,” they should not affect current recipients and instead should be directed “far off in the future,” and they should be offset by increases in tax-generated revenue. Nonetheless, the group’s openness to the possibility of unspecified cuts was seen as a significant development by people on all sides of the Social Security question because of AARP’s influence on federal policies affecting older Americans, including Medicare, prescription drugs and many more… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

I could understand AARP’s position, if there were actually a need, to cut benefits. There is not. The only need in play here is the Republican need to privatize Social Security, so their bankster buddies can do for our retirement what they did for our homes’ value.