海角大神

I鈥檝e long thought of AARP as an 鈥渙ld people鈥檚鈥� organization, which might be enough reason to resist joining despite the attractive discounts and other benefits.聽 (Who wants to admit they鈥檙e now a card-carrying 鈥渙ld person,鈥� after all?)聽 But for most of my adult life I have also thought of AARP as an聽鈥渁苍驳谤测鈥�聽old people鈥檚 organization, because I鈥檝e found quite unappealing the 鈥渁ge-ist鈥� attitude that they seem to promote鈥揳 sort of 鈥渦s against them鈥� (鈥漷hem鈥� being all the聽non-old people) demeanor that comes through in their emphasis on how special old people and old people鈥檚 benefits are.

I first received an invitation to join AARP in the summer of 2011 when I was still 49.聽 (I think the official floor is still 50.)聽 Coincidentally, I got my invitational membership card at the same time that AARP鈥檚 then-policy director, John Rother, had seemingly brought AARP to its senses on Social Security reform. That led me to post聽this pat on AARP鈥檚 back聽and a more serious contemplation of my personal relationship with AARP鈥搕hat I might actually join.聽 But I thought about it long enough that within a few months John Rother was leaving AARP and (probably聽苍辞迟听coincidentally) the association had reversed course and launched an angry ad campaign to oppose Social Security and Medicare reform, which聽I was not too pleased about.聽 Inching closer to age 50, I continued to avoid committing to membership.

Then a few weeks before I turned 50, I posted about how I was (still)聽鈥淣ot AARP鈥濃�揷hallenging the organization to better live out their mission statement: 聽

So, I turned 50 on March 2nd and still did not join AARP.

Nine months since, and we鈥檙e fretting about the 鈥渇iscal cliff鈥� and hoping we get a 鈥済rand bargain鈥� for some 鈥済o big鈥� solution to the longer-term fiscal (un)sustainability problem, and AARP wants us to know they鈥檙e holding firm on their age-ist stance, according to an article in today鈥檚 Washington Post with a title (in the print version)鈥淎ARP flexes its muscle in debt talks.鈥澛燗ccording to the article (written by the Post鈥檚 Michael Fletcher and Zachary Goldfarb):

Defending themselves against the critique that they鈥檙e engaging in intergenerational warfare that pits current retirees against future generations, the article goes on to explain (emphasis added):

But 鈥減rotecting鈥� benefits has to include figuring out a way of actually paying for them, not just lending moral support for them.聽 If AARP disagrees with approaches within the Social Security and Medicare programs to reduce overall federal budget deficits (even over the longer term), does the AARP endorse alternative spending cuts or specific ways of raising revenues?聽 The obvious implication of resisting reforms to Social Security and Medicare is that聽tax聽reform will have to carry even more weight and raise even聽more聽revenue than otherwise.聽 Which is at least mathematically possible and a fine stance to take for some people who support聽both聽larger government聽and the higher taxes聽to pay for it, but are we sure that AARP鈥揳nd all 37 million of its members鈥搊verlaps much with this (I suspect small) subset of people?聽 If AARP聽does聽support certain kinds of tax increases that would make reforms to Social Security and/or Medicare unnecessary, they should speak up about those tax proposals and use their powerful lobby (which聽both聽Democrats and Republicans aim to please) to break the current impasse on the fiscal cliff and longer-term fiscal sustainability issue which is largely hung up on聽tax聽policy, after all.聽 (Note that absolutely聽none聽of the current fiscal cliff debate is over what should be done with Social Security鈥搒o it seems what AARP is really trying to say is 鈥測eah, you all better keep NOT talking about Social Security reform.鈥�)

If AARP members don鈥檛 really like the idea of tax-only solutions, maybe AARP needs to be careful about what the basic math applied to their absolute 鈥渉ands off Social Security and Medicare鈥� position implies.聽 They may be implicitly endorsing tax increases that not even a majority of their 37 million members would support.

The Post article goes on to mention John Rother鈥檚 post-AARP perspective, consistent with the position he (bravely, or naively?) took while there (emphasis added):

It鈥檚 been my opinion that AARP has to do better than take a 鈥渏ust say no鈥� position on Social Security and Medicare reform.聽 There has to be something that actually聽solves聽the fiscal problem that they鈥檙e willing to very clearly say 鈥測es鈥� to.聽 (And saying 鈥測es鈥� to 鈥渆conomic growth鈥� and 鈥測es鈥� to 鈥渟lowing the growth in health-care costs鈥濃�揳s many of the 鈥淪trengthen Social Security鈥� folks typically 鈥渞ecommend鈥濃�揹o聽not聽qualify as proposed solutions without the specific policy recommendations that would lead to those good outcomes.)聽 Otherwise, what AARP is really saying is to just let our kids figure it out, because it鈥檚 really going to be way more their problem than a problem for any of us 鈥渙ld people.鈥�

I鈥檓 still not joining AARP.