AARP Loses Members, Misses the Bigger Picture

posted at 8:42 am on August 18, 2009 by Slublog
[ Politics ]    printer-friendly

One of the questionable joys of living in a state with two center-left Republican senators is that whenever a controversial issue is being debated in Congress, the airways are inundated with advertisements for and against. It gets irritating at times, but does provide me with the opportunity to listen to the arguments on both sides and judge the effectiveness of the message. Recently, I heard an advertisement in favor of ObamaCare. The narrator would quote a so-called “myth” about the plan, followed by a game-show ‘wrong answer’ buzzer.

What piqued my interest was not the ad but who paid for it. After the narrator said the name of the organization he said “paid for by the AARP.” Interesting, and probably counterproductive.

WASHINGTON — About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group’s support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.

The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn’t unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens’ lobby to shed members in droves when it’s advocating on a controversial issue.

The article later quotes Nannis putting the 60,000 number in perspective, and he makes a good point. The number of people who have quit may seem large, but is only about 0.15% of the total membership of the organization, which is in the process of getting a huge influx of members as the baby boomers age. So overall, this doesn’t sound like such a big deal for the AARP.

At least, in the short-term.

What the AARP does not and has never taken into consideration is that many of the younger are tired of being used as an ATM of sorts for the older and have no intention of ever joining the AARP. The future math is not pretty. In 1950, there were approximately 16 workers for every one person receiving Social Security benefits. Today, there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. This was not the fault of those who created the Social Security system. It’s a result of demographic changes. When the system was created in 1935, average life expectancy was 60 for men, 63 for women. An overall improvement in medical and lifestyle changes has brought the average life expectancy up to 77 years. In addition, the baby boomer generation did not have as many kids as their parents, so there are not enough of us to support all of them.

There have been a number of attempts to reform the system, but the AARP has fought tooth and nail against every one of them. When a politician talks about the precarious financial future of Social Security and the need for change, they are shouted down and accused of wanting to slash benefits and leave older people eating dog food out of cans. The AARP usually leads the charge, which is understandable, since it’s what they’re paid to do.

What the AARP doesn’t realize is that in their quest for short-term political gain, they are working against their own long-term interests. When I turn 50, I will likely receive my first mailing from the AARP. When that day comes, I will throw their mailing away and I’m likely not the only one who will do so. Why should those of us in our mid-to late 30′s join an organization that has worked against our financial interests for years and whose advocacy has led to greater and greater levels of wealth redistribution from the younger generation to their membership?

Such advocacy may not be the primary mission of the AARP, but it is the most visible one, and the one that has done the most damage to the country’s financial future – and by extension, my financial future and that of my children. The organization’s ongoing war against reform means a very large bill is coming due all too soon.

Blowback