Ding Ding

With Social Security looking to be the biggest purse in American Politics this year, let's take a look at the headlining bout. The AARP versus USA Next.

Two weeks ago, USA Next was a political no name. A light weight with a glass jaw. And then, as I reported a few days ago, they hit the big leagues when they signed on a major player from the highly successful Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (a truly ironic name).

These are the people that attacked Kerry's war record, instigating a plethora of ad hominem attacks such as the one that implied that he didn't deserve his purple hearts because he didn't spill enough blood in Vietnam. Max Cleland lost lots of blood, as well as a few appendages, but the Republicans said he lost too much and it made him crazy, which leads me to ponder; just how much blood is enough? A quart? A pint? RNC help me out, there has to be a standardized quantity of bodily fluid that makes you an apt candidate right?

But I digress.

USA Next fired it's first warning shot accross AARP's brow with this ad on their website. A picture of a big red "X" over a soldier, and a picture with a big green check mark over two men kissing. They quickly repealed the ad, but according to USAN big wig Jarvis:

We were testing to see whether left liberal groups would overreact. And they did. The hypothesis was that they would focus on one single tiny image on one Web site.

This is the equivalent of saying, "I meant to do that," right after taking a chin dive into the concrete for no apparent reason. But Jarvis goes on to say that his theory was proven by the flood of liberal outrage at the impending tv spot.

The spot was intended to attack the fact that the AARP fought against the same-sex marriage ban in Ohio. While I wouldn't have any qualms with AARP taking up the torch for gay rights, that's not what they did.Here's a quick break down of what they were fighting for:

From the Akron Beacon Journal:

Leaders of the state chapter of the AARP are also opposed, fearing the effect on older, unmarried couples who stand to lose property rights, inheritance, pensions and other benefits.

From the Dayton Daily News:

Accordingly, AARP recommends its defeat as it could "deny rights of property ownership, inheritance, pensions, power of attorney and other matters of vital interest to the health and well-being of unmarried older couples."

Or, simply put, they weren't expressing a liberal bias so much as an old people bias.

But that seems to be the driving meme behind USA Next, AARP are a bunch of liberals. So much so, in fact, that with pride, USA Next posts a transcript of Bill O'Reilly "spanking" the AARP (before you start to worry, relax. Ol' Bill wasn't really paddling old people, and no lufas were involved). I was actually kind of interested to check it out because Bill O'Liely is actually kind of famous for diggin' in people's asses, that is if you considering shutting off someone's mic and refusing to hear their argument an acceptable and valid debate technique. But let's have a little listen, shall we?

We kick the whole thing off with this Editor's note from the good folks at USA Next:

AARP has been a liberal activist lobby for over 45 years. Over the last 14 years they have taken over a billion dollars from taxpayers, an utter waste and outrage. Their championing of massive government, oppressive regulations, high taxes, and anti-family policies is not new. They have never supported tax cuts in either the Reagan or Bush administrations. And when it comes to wasteful social welfare programs, AARP has always been on the wrong side. Bill O’Reilly’s investigations into this big government behemoth are timely and reinforce USA Next’s own critiques. That’s why we are the alternative.

Reprinted with permission below is a verbatim transcript of the “Personal Story” segment from “The O’Reilly Factor” broadcast of December 8, 2004. Bill O’Reilly’s guests were investigative journalist Dale Van Atta, author of Trust Betrayed: Inside the AARP (Regnery, 1998), and Terry Scanlon, president of the Capital Research Center, a Washington-based conservative think-tank.

The segment focused on the left-wing political agenda of the AARP, which USA Next has rung the alarm about for years.

No comments now, I just want you to pay attention to the real generalized language when it comes to AARP's liberal agenda. You'll find it to be a pretty heavy motif in the interview, and we'll see it again when we talk about Art Linkletter.

O'LIELY: So what did you find out researching your book there, Mr. Van Atta?

DALE VAN ATTA, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Well, I found it was really a Fortune 500 company that sidelines as a lobbying organization for the Washington staff, which is primarily liberal, headed by John Rother for many years, public policy head, and he’s been a liberal for many years

SHUDDER GASP! You mean AARP is actually a business? No! And it's a major business that lobbies? I didn't know that was possible. The NRA doesn't... no wait. Well USA Next surely... no that's not right either. But the AARP is liberal, which means that conservative businesses can lobby for conservative agendas to their heart's extent, but heavens forfend that a business lobbies for a liberal agenda. The fact is that USA Next is guilty of about the same thing with the exception of being a Fortune 500 company (I'm not sure on that one, but I'll update if it is or isn't), and instead of being liberal, it's conservative.

O’LIELY: So this is…this is a money-making machine, almost $80 million a year, which is now advancing—would you say it’s a progressive secular agenda, a liberal agenda? What is it?

VAN ATTA: [I]t’s a liberal agenda, and it has been for quite some years now. It looked like they might not be liberal when they were siding with Bush last year on the Medicare prescription bill, but they were also pragmatic.

They wanted to win. They had so many losses with the liberals over the years that they had to kind of shine up to some Republicans for a short while. But they’re about to diverge in a major way again and show their stripes.

First off, yes it's a money making machine. If it pulls in 80 million dollars a year, and it serves 35 million people, that means that it is making a little over two dollars per person. I know, the AARP is bilking them. But I like Van Atta's little back pedal here with Medicare. Nice recovery Van, but in fact it's just more proof that AARP has more of an old people's bias vice a liberal bias.
As for all those "losses" under the liberal agenda, I would say that Medicare is actually a pretty liberal idea, right? But also, the AARP was key in ensuring that Social Security was a third rail for just about any politician up until just recently, and the jury's still out on that one. That's pretty close to a victory. Then there's this story.

My dad is a very intelligent man. To be sure, he's actually a genius. He's also kind of a moron. He dropped out of high school because school just wasn't cool enough for him. After carrying a couple of hair net jobs, including a kick ass job as a chef at a boarding school which resulted in my father being an incredible cook, he landed a job digging ditches for Pacific Gas and Electric out in California.

While my father did move up a little, he never got past being a blue collar working, all be it a highly paid one in later years. He now drives a truck around and helps people by restoring their natural gas supply to their homes when it goes out, or turning it off in hazardous situations. He's not a hero, and his work isn't by any means glorious, but he loves his job, and has loved it for nearly fifty years.

He's been eligible for early retirement for a couple of years now, but continues to work. About a year ago I was worried for him because to him, his work is his life. He enjoys his free time, but he's been doing the same job for so long I really was scared that if he was forced into retirement, he would go downhill fast. Being in the military, you hear lots of stories of retirees just not being able to go on after they retire from the job that has become such a big part of their life.

What my dad then explained to me was that he can't be forced into retirement. It was considered discrimination against the elderly, and illegal. Discrimination against the elderly. Care to take a stab at any multi-million dollar lobbying companies that had a hand in that? Back to our show.

O'Liely: I…but that’s how I got on to this story, you guys, because, as I said in the “T Points,” you know, we pitched them, hey, do a story on “O’Reilly Factor for Kids” because the grandparents are going to want to buy them for their grandchildren and this and that, and they were—they weren’t like, well, we’ll think about. Thanks for calling, Bill. They were going no! I was like whoa! You know, what was that all about?

I just like this bit because it's the "plug my crappy book" segment. Here's a hint, Bill. The reason why the AARP Isn't all about advertizing your book is because it's a heap of steaming crap. Don't believe me? Read some of it yourself.

VAN ATTA: As Terry said, the members don’t know what they want at all. They don’t…I mean, they may get some of the information, but they get very little.

So what Van Atta's saying is that the AARP is bilking it's members at a hefty net $2 dollars per person to promote a secret agenda that is against their will? According to AARP, this is how business is done:

How does AARP make sure our policies represent such a diverse membership? Developing public policies that serve all kinds of people in all kinds of situations is a big challenge. That's why we work so hard to be thorough. We gather members' ideas from town meetings, phone calls, letters, surveys and polls, which we then discuss and debate.

What happens to all of this information? The National Legislative Council, a special advisory body of 25 volunteers, is tasked with balancing these perspectives. They hear from renowned experts, elected leaders as well as everyday people. Then they make policy recommendations to AARP's Board of Directors.

The 21 members of the AARP Board of Directors consider the recommendations of the National Legislative Council. The Board relies on various member surveys and feedback, as well as discussions with federal and state legislators, government leaders, business and industry representatives, and policy experts, to help make its policy decisions.

Once the Board approves the policies, they are published in The Policy Book: AARP Public Policies. These policies guide the advocacy efforts of AARP volunteers and staff throughout the year. This book reflects AARP's strong commitment to representing our members at every level of government.

And yes, the Policy Book is readily available to all of its members, so it's not exactly a secret. Damn those liberal AARP guys for being so liberal that they actually listen to their members.

O’LIELY: Yes. Well, look, AARP is a very effective organization in marketing, but I am worried about public money going into this organization, Mr. Scanlon. Do you know any that does?

SCANLON: Oh, they do get government money.

O’LIELY: Do they?

SCANLON: Currently, they have a $50-million grant from the Department of Labor for a seniors employment program that costs over $7,000 per head to operate. These are various...

What's the problem? Isn't this what they're supposed to be doing? Helping retirees however they can? Just a thought.

VAN ATTA: I think they’re overrated, because I think the politicians understand just who they don’t represent, that they primarily represent the Washington office and some fine-thinking people, but—who are primarily aiming at assisting those who cannot afford AARP membership, the indigent and the old—the poor elderly.

O’REILLY: Well, what is it? Like 35 bucks a year or something like…they’re going to lose a lot of members.

SCANLON: It’s $12.50. $12.50 a year.

O’REILLY: $12.50 a year, so it’s like they…they just want to sell you the stuff.

SCANLON: Thirty bucks for three years.

This one's funny, real funny. First there is the implication that there are people out there that can't, over the span of a year, scrounge together $12.50. Thanks in part to the AARP's tireless effort to ensure that Social Security keeps going, most retirees should be able to pay that very considerable sum.

But you know what else is funny? The irony. USA Next also has a discount card, and do you know how much it costs? $12.50. Hey, Pot, how's the Kettle been lately?

So that's Bill O'Liely spanking the AARP. I mean he really gives it to them by saying that because he let some right wing crackpots on his show, the AARP is going to lose a huge bulk of their membership. But we shouldn't understimate Bill's pull. Remember Ludacris' contract with Pepsi?

I want to wrap things up with some words from a very prominent member of the AARP, Art Linkletter. Artie writes for the AARP an essay entitled, "Who Really Works For America's Families?" Most of it is typical conservative overly patriotic and sentimental tripe, so you can read the whole thing if you want (I don't recommend it if you've eaten recently), but in the final few paragraphs, he does say a few things that actually are important:

But first, I’d like to ask some blunt questions: Do you want more taxes taken out of your earnings? Do you want more unelected bureaucrats taking over more details of your life and your family’s life? Do you want federal regulators making your health choices, instead of you, your family, and your doctor? Do you want government regulators to control the investment and retirement decisions of your family, instead of you?

If you answered “Yes,” then AARP is your group. They continuously work to create high taxes, big, invasive, bloated government, herds of regulators, and dependency of citizens on unelected bureaucrats.

But if you answered “No,” USA Next is for you! Do you want lower taxes, more control over your life, health, and finances, with less government, and more constitutional restraints on judges and unelected bureaucrats? Then USA Next works and fights for you!

This is all, of course, well ironed out and manufactured right wing rhetoric that doesn't require things like details, or understanding of the issues to sound good. As I explained in my post titled, "Taxes Are Bad, Mkay?" it's really easy to demonize tax without recognizing the need and benefit of taxes. When it comes to big government having a hand in health care, well, Artie can afford not only the $100 fee for the Art Linkletter membership to USA Next, but he can also probably afford the best healthcare the private sector has to offer. Not all of our senior citizens have that ability.

In the end, USA Next is to the AARP what Fox News is to the Mainstream Media, and as they prove, subscribing to bumper sticker rhetoric means never having to say... well, anything truthful at all.

Mr. M

UPDATE: According to USA Today USA Next is not a Fortune 500 company, but you know what? Neither is AARP. Hmm, a lie, go figure.