AARP Opposes Social Security

I keep seeing that AARP is opposing anything being done to save Social Security. AARP used to be the American association of retired people, but now it means nothing. Truly, I heard their spokesman say so in an interview. So I wrote this letter to the Washington branch: AARP, I have been seeing in various places that you are opposing fixing the problems of Social Security. The first problem: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. What I have been paying for 44 years went to fund dead-end freeways named after Congressmen, and some for benefits. Second, Social Security does not grow the taxes we pay into it. So it will underperform. It cannot meet the benefits promised to people currently paying into it. Something has to be done. Our choices are to (1) increase taxes, (2) decrease future benefits, or (3) increase the growth. President Bush has proposed decreasing future benefits to the higher income people and allowing increased growth. Bush has taken a great political risk and proposed a solution. You oppose him, but you don't offer another solution. I read the article by Ed Singler, AARP Washington State President, on your web site. His facts are wrong. For example: "Social Security is the most successful domestic program in our nation's history." Social Security at present returns about 1% on what we pay in. That is not a successful program. Anyone can earn more over the long haul, despite ups and downs. He vigorously opposes allowing my son and daughters to have some of their SS tax money go into a personal account. When my daughters are able to have personal accounts they will grow a nest egg that they can use or give to their children. I paid for 44 years, but if I die today someone gets one small check and the black hole of the government gets my 41 years of sweat. [This is true if my lovely wife dies the same day.] [When I read this I start getting mad.] Question: Do you oppose the current practice of using today's payroll tax collections to pay for whatever politicians want to spend on? It's a Ponzi scheme. Anyone who says to do nothing appears to support this corrupt practice. Question: If accounts invested in stocks and bonds are fatally risky, why do you recommend your members do the same with their personal savings? ("AARP encourages Americans to plan, save and invest for their retirement years....") Ron Hebron Lake Forest Park, WA Update.Those who regard Prof. Paul Krugman a reliable authority on Social Security should read his correction department. Donald Luskin exposes the two inaccuracies that Krugman based Monday's column on. First, Krugman ignores the second part of the President' proposal, so he can say that benefits are not increased for low-income people. The change in indexing leaves the benefit unchanged. But guaranteeing that no one will receive less than the poverty level is an increase. Second, Krugman says that Bush is wrong to say the largest benefit reduction will be for the high income people. Krugman finds it to be at $60,000. But Krugman should redo his calculations and correct his error. Luskin cites 3 ways of calculating the change which all find the largest per centage reduction at 90,000. (The SSA's is reprinted here.) The New York Times, where Krugman is published, on May 1, prints charts that show the reduction. And it is largest for those now making $90,000. Will Krugman print a correction?