Newsweek: Exposes how AARP Screws Youth

I've been getting a little bit of pushback from the piece posted yesterday about entitlement spending, right wing orgs funding youth groups, and the weekend conference "Exploring the Millennial Generation’s Return on Investment" hosted in part by Mobilize.org. Mobilize reminded me that AARP was also part of the funding for the conference - which in turn reminded me of the Newsweek article one of my favorite writers, Robert Samuelson, posted this morning all about how AARP wants to screw young people.

Screw is an awfully powerful word... perhaps undermine is more accurate. It isn't surprising that the AARP co-sponsored the entitlement conference because they very strongly support entitlements. The problem is that they don't want young people to have them, they just want us to pay for the Baby Boomers to have them.

Samuelson talks about the $1.3trillion spent on programs that take care of primarily older generations. These were created during the New Deal to take care of older people, the result has become that an entire culture of older people now live independently in swank facilities or in their own homes when they age, vs. years ago when they moved back in with their children who took care of them. Spending like this is also why we saw such a significant decrease in the poverty rate among the elderly since the 1960's as Social Security spending increased.

"Now comes the House-passed health-care "reform" bill that, amazingly, would extract more subsidies from the young. It mandates that health insurance premiums for older Americans be no more than twice the level of that for younger Americans. That's much less than the actual health spending gap between young and old. Spending for those age 60 to 64 is four to five times greater than those 18 to 24. So, the young would overpay for insurance that—under the House bill—people must buy: Twenty-and thirtysomethings would subsidize premiums for fifty-and sixtysomethings. (Those 65 and over receive Medicare.)"

The Newsweek piece says this is in large part due to the insurmountable lobby from the AARP on this bill. The push has been schizophrenic with loving ads about "future generations" but Samuelson says turns behind close doors to screw the young with their pants on... er... um, undermine us.

"For example, the House health legislation improves Medicare's drug benefit. That would help the half of AARP members who are over 65. The other half, those between 50 and 64, could benefit from the skewed insurance premiums.

Although premium changes would apply mainly to people using insurance "exchanges," the differences would be substantial. A single person 55 to 64 might save $3,490, estimates an Urban Institute study. By contrast, single people in their 20s and early 30s might pay about $600 to $1,100 more. For the young, the extra cost might be larger, says economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute, because the House bill would require them to purchase fairly generous insurance plans rather than cheaper catastrophic coverage that might better suit their needs"

Let me be clear, I don't mind paying my fair share, a percentage based on what I'm make for a living. Indeed, when I'm in a position where I'm making a good living, I don't mind paying a little extra, I do take issue with paying 4 times my share. Samuelson remarks this comes at a particularly difficult time for youth with our unemployment rate at nearly double the national average and average college debt over $20,000 post-graduation. But this is what happens when you don't have anyone lobbying on your behalf and a multimillion dollar organization lobbying on behalf of older Americans.

And lets not pit the young against the old - I take care of my grandfather as much as I can afford to, and sometimes he takes care of me. When he gets even older, I'll be the one shouldered with him 100% because he has nothing other than Social Security to take care of him. And when my mom is older, she'll have savings to take care of her, but her 401k took quite a hit with the rest of them.

The point is, I don't mind paying for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid - I like these programs. The AARP should be ashamed of pitting my generation against theirs and shouldering us with everything when there are far more able bodied people to contribute - like .. oh the corporations that got a tax cut in 1983 when Social Security got looted the first time and shifted to the shoulders of youth. But wait - the Chamber of Commerce has a pretty substantial lobby as well, so again it moves to those who have no one to speak for them on The Hill.

It shouldn't be an either/or game with the AARP; they are building enemies rather than allies. Both generations want Social Security and both want health care - why can't we each agree that the people that should be shouldered with paying for it are the super rich who can afford it - or better Lou Dobbs - and the corporations who have been given more loopholes in tax code that you could drive a Metro train through.

Oh, forget it, we are getting screwed. Until we have a lobby as powerful as the AARP we'll continue to get undermined as a generation. Even after electing the President we've showed that we don't matter nearly as much as organizations like the Chamber of Commerce or the AARP when it comes to his policies. I think the only solution other than unmaking the power of lobbyists, is to develop or own lobby that can be as persuasive as the others. Sadly, its the only way today to be effective in enacting policy that is more fair.

That and go full on single payer health care.