CUNY Staff Congress: Thanks for the dough, please no tuition boosts

Here’s the statement from Dr. Barbara Bowen, president of the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, on the framework agreement’s tuition provisions, which includes tuition increases that the group would like to see replaced by the continuation of the “millionaire’s tax”:

While all the details of Albany’s emerging “framework” for funding CUNY and SUNY are not yet available, we commend the legislative leaders and the governor for recognizing the need to stabilize funding for CUNY and SUNY. Such stability is long overdue. As the agreement is finalized, we call on Albany to ensure full protection of annual funding and necessary cost increases.

We object, however, to the annual tuition increases on which the framework is reportedly built. Five years of tuition increases is not the way to protect opportunity for CUNY students, nor is it the way to ensure long-term public investment in public higher education. Tuition increases are a tax in disguise—a tax that disproportionately hurts the poor.

The framework takes an important step toward protecting the lowest-income students from the sting of the proposed increases by providing credits for tuition in excess of the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) ceiling, and makes an important statement by ruling out differential tuition. Significant as these protections are, they do not go far enough. Thousands of students already fall through the cracks in TAP, and many others may be discouraged from entering college by the escalating cost. In addition, CUNY should not have to absorb the cost of offsetting tuition above the TAP ceiling.

There is another way—a better way—to fund CUNY. Instead of turning low- and middle-income students into cash machines, New York should continue the “millionaires’ tax.” It is unconscionable to ask the poorest people in the state to pay more for the chance of a college education when the wealthiest New Yorkers are not asked to contribute their fair share.

The Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, affiliated with NYSUT and the AFT, represents more than 22,000 faculty and professional staff at The City University of New York and the CUNY Research Foundation.

Teachers aim to salvage no-layoff deal

By Daniel Massey

Amid opposition from other municipal unions, the United Federation of Teachers is trying to resuscitate a plan to save more than 4, 100 of its members from layoffs

Days after leaders of municipal unions threw cold water on a potential deal to avert thousands of teacher layoffs, United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew is trying to resuscitate the proposal.

Mr. Mulgrew was expected to meet Monday afternoon with District Council 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts in an effort to win her support for the deal, labor sources said.

The Municipal Labor Committee and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn had been talking of tapping into a health care fund to stave off 4,166 teacher layoffs and 20 firehouse closures, but the plan fell through last week when leaders of some city unions balked at it.

Mr. Mulgrew has the support of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, as the deal would keep all firehouses open. But adoption appears to be a long shot because other municipal unions would not see direct benefits and argue that the Health Insurance Stabilization Fund, which is run jointly by the city and the unions, was not meant to rescue the speaker and the mayor from difficult budget decisions.

They contend that thousands of municipal jobs have been cut in recent years and that using the health fund money to save teachers and fire companies means it won’t be there to help other workers down the road.

“Mike [Mulgrew] has the right to lobby whomever he thinks he needs to, but I’m not changing my position on that unless the mayor is giving us a two-and-a-half-year, no-layoff guarantee,” said Norman Seabrook, president of the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association. “Why should I be the bailout package for the mayor and City Council speaker?”

Harry Nespoli, chairman of the Municipal Labor Committee, said many of the municipal unions are “just totally disgusted with the way they’ve been treated” by City Hall.

“I’ve always left an open door, and I will continue as the chair to look to try to come up with other ideas,” said Mr. Nespoli, who had pitched the idea of tapping the health fund. “As far as this is concerned, if it’s not the way to go or the mistrust at City Hall is totally ridiculous, then we won’t reach an agreement.”

A spokesman for Mr. Mulgrew said, “We don’t negotiate in public.” District Council 37 did not immediately comment.

A deal could be a political coup for Ms. Quinn, who is widely expected to run for mayor in 2013, as it could help her land an endorsement from the United Federation of Teachers. Moreover, it would allow her to avert blame for a budget that slashes teaching positions and closes firehouses.

Nurses Association Vows to Fight Back Against Cuts to Healthcare Benefits – Union will seek to remedy cuts with gains at the bargaining table

New York City – The employer trustees of the NYSNA Benefits Fund have prevailed in their efforts to decimate the health insurance coverage offered by the fund, a move that the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) sees as part of the coordinated attack on unions and the middle class. The Nurses Association will now take its fight to preserve quality healthcare benefits for registered nurses to the bargaining table.

We fought as hard as we could to preserve our members’ health insurance benefits, but we believe the current climate, with its emphasis on cost-cutting and penalizing workers for the rights and benefits they have sacrificed to achieve, worked against us,” said Nurses Association CEO Tina Gerardi, MS, RN, CAE. “We believe that our members should have the right to bargain a wide range of plans at the negotiating table, and we will seek in our bargaining to reduce or eliminate the impact of these cuts.”

Arbitrator George Nicolau today issued a decision siding with the employer trustees and replacing all of the existing NYSNA Benefit plans with three new plans that will require employee contributions to the premiums, increase co-pays and mandate drug step therapy.

The NYSNA Benefits Fund provides healthcare coverage for more than 14,000 members in 38 bargaining units. The employer trustees sought significant cuts to the Benefits Fund’s stable and cost-effective plans, despite the fact that the fund is not financially stressed. This clearly demonstrates that the hospitals do not believe their registered professional nurses deserve the best healthcare coverage for themselves and their families, despite the nurse’s commitment to delivering the best quality health care for their patients every day.

Like companies and politicians all over the country that are crying poverty while supporting tax breaks for the wealthy, the NYSNA Benefits Fund was clearly an attractive target, but cutting healthcare benefits is short-sighted,” Gerardi said.

The Nurses Association will seek all possible remedies at the bargaining table and will encourage our members and the public to insist employers respect nurses. Being a nurse is rewarding, important work, but it is also physically demanding with the risk of injury, contagious diseases and the threat of violence. Nurses need, deserve and demand quality healthcare benefits.”

The three new benefit plans take effect Sept. 1, and nurses will be required to contribute to premiums in contracts as they are renegotiated. In accordance, with the federal Affordable Care Act, preventive care under the new plans will be provided without co-pays.

The New York State Nurses Association is the voice for nursing in the Empire State. With more than 37,000 members, it is New York’s largest professional association and union for registered nurses. The association represents registered nurses, and some all-professional bargaining units, in New York and New Jersey. It supports nurses and nursing practice through education, research, legislative advocacy, and collective bargaining.

Budget Cuts Could Strangle Sputtering Recovery

by James Parrott

Demonstrators marched from City Hall to Wall Street last month to protest Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed budget cuts.

The recent spate of indicators showing weakening in the economy is a reminder of the folly of government budget austerity as the best medicine. More than anything else, the economy needs more jobs. Businesses are not creating jobs because consumer demand, which accounts for two thirds of gross domestic product, is anemic.

Without consumer spending, businesses have no need to hire more workers. Budget cutting at the state and local government levels compounds the problem. Stubbornly high unemployment, evidenced in employment figures released late last week, in New York City reflects a faltering recovery. Historically steep state budget cuts enacted this spring will push joblessness higher in the months ahead. If the City Council accepts Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed budget cuts and layoffs, the city’s job market will see the proverbial double whammy from an already weak recovery compounded by state and city budget cuts that worsen unemployment.

Why the Recovery Isn’t Taking Off
While the Great Recession technically ended in June 2009, total employment continued to decline through the end of that year. Twenty-five million Americans are unemployed, discouraged or underemployed. Long-term unemployment is at record levels making this is the longest period of 8 percent-plus unemployment since modern record-keeping began in 1948. Unemployment remains over 9 percent. There are several reasons why this recovery has been tepid at best, and far weaker than previous recoveries since the Second World War.

American households, on average, are still saddled with high debt burdens, the result of a borrowing spree during the last expansion and the housing bubble. Families borrowed heavily in part to maintain living standards since the 2004-2007 expansion, the first during which wages were stagnant and family incomes did not rise. This continued a trend that began in the early 1980s, in which most of the income generated by national economic growth has been concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest 5 percent of the population.

ANALYSIS
Unprecedented mortgage foreclosure problems and the prolonged housing slump also have contributed to the weak recovery. A rebound in housing construction and the purchase of appliances and furniture normally provides considerable fuel for a recovery; this time the wrecked housing sector is a big anvil chained to the ankles of an already sluggish rebound. The continuing difficulty small businesses face in borrowing — largely due to weak consumer demand and the unwillingness of many banks to lend — is a third major factor behind the tentative recovery.

Finally, the recovery owes a good part of its snail’s pace to the continuing budget pressures weighing down state and local governments. State and local governments account for 12 percent of the national economy — one and a half times the federal government’s share and slightly larger than the business investment share. Weak tax collections and the winding down of the federal stimulus leave state and local governments with the unenviable choice between raising taxes or cutting spending. Most states and localities faced with this have cut spending and laid off teachers and other public sector employees to balance their budgets. Those cuts have subtracted from growth in the economy and added over a half million people to the ranks of the unemployed.

The Economic Battleground
It defies comprehension to think that more unemployment resulting from consumer belt-tightening and government budget cuts will pull us out of our economic muck. Stephen Roach, formerly a leading economist for Wall Street giant Morgan Stanley, recently characterized debt-burdened and underpaid American consumers as “zombies” — the economic walking dead — whose constrained spending keeps the economy from firing on all cylinders. Yet Roach urged more belt-tightening on consumers. Many others among economic conservatives and the well-to-do try to shift blame for the economic crisis onto government or at least hammer away at the need to slash government spending.

This has become an epic economic battleground. On the one side, the burgeoning ranks of the out of work, the under-employed, the underpaid, the debt-burdened, and the millions trapped in a collapsed housing market seem to echo Langston Hughes’ refrain, “Let (America) be the dream it used to be.” On the other, the economically comfortable, who draw sustenance from a bailed-out financial sector and financial investments that enable them to seek profits from anywhere in the world, firmly feel that everyone else needs austerity.

New York City labor expert Ed Ott has a phrase for depriving working families of gainful employment: “economic capital punishment.” You have to go back at least 80 years to the eve of the New Deal to find a period in this country when so much of the public discourse tacitly accepted such a prolonged period of extraordinarily high unemployment.

New York City’s Less-than-Robust Recovery
As in many parts of the United States, high unemployment is no stranger to New York City. While the jobs recovery here has been in line with the nation’s overall, it is tepid at best and unemployment remains far higher than before the Great Recession. Fifteen percent of New Yorkers are unemployed or underemployed — that’s over 600,000 out of a workforce of 4 million. The average period of joblessness exceeds 40 weeks. Most of the drop in the unemployment rate in this “recovery” has occurred because discouraged workers have given up looking for jobs.

As Bloomberg noted when he presented his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal in early May, state budget cuts will take $6.8 billion in spending out of the New York City economy over the next year. In addition to cutting back on local school aid and threatening the jobs of thousands of teachers, the state budget cut support for the City University, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, public assistance and tens of millions in contracts to social service providers serving low-income communities. And in curbing Medicaid spending, the state budget will reduce the flow of over $2 billion in federal Medicaid payments to local hospitals and health care providers. Thus, the recent state budget deal will drag down job growth and subtract basically a year’s worth of federal stimulus from the city economy. Two steps forward, one step back. Recovery will have to wait.

While the mayor repeatedly blames the federal and state government for reducing spending, ironically his proposed city budget is cut from the same cloth. There has already been a reduction of 16,000 since 2009 in those working for the city or related agencies, including public libraries and the Health and Hospitals Corp. Bloomberg’s budget proposes to add 6,000 teachers and 3,000 other city employees to the ranks of the unemployed. In addition, the budget proposal slashes spending on childcare, homeless rental assistance, and services for youth and seniors, and closes firehouses, libraries, childcare and senior centers. Even through enrollment in CUNY community colleges has grown by 26 percent since 2008, the mayor proposes they receive less city funding than they did three years ago.

In the face of the lingering adversity resulting from the Great Recession — with rising poverty, ultra-high unemployment, record homelessness and demand for emergency food assistance — the mayor’s budget can only be described as austere.

Alternatives to Budget Austerity
The city needs budget policies that match resources to real needs. Is the city really getting value for the tremendous near-tripling in business tax breaks — now close to $3 billion — over the past decade, or for the $3 billion in contracting out for information technology, professional, clerical and maintenance services when city employees can more cost-effectively perform those services? Can the city afford $320 million in tax loopholes for hedge fund managers when that has the effect of shifting costs to low-income working families who can ill-afford to pay more for childcare?

Wouldn’t it be far better to begin to shift the tide toward shared sacrifice with the comfortable elite contributing through progressive taxation to help their fellow city residents re-build their economic lives? Budget austerity is not the solution to our economic calamity, not in Washington, not in Albany and not in New York City. The city can’t fight this battle on its own, but it should at least be fighting on the right side.

James Parrott is deputy director and chief economist of the Fiscal Policy Institute (www.fiscalpolicy.org). He has been studying and writing about the New York economy since he landed in New York City a quarter century ago.

PEF rallies at Capitol: It’s about R-E-S-P-E-C-T

At a Monday afternoon rally at the Capitol, Public Employees Federation President Ken Brynien said his anger at Gov. Andrew Cuomo wasn’t based simply on budget cuts, or up to 9,800 potential layoffs, or the failure of Cuomo’s negotiators to offer a retirement incentive or even meet with the union in more than a month.

No: “It’s more personal than that — it’s about the lack of respect,” said Brynien, drawing a roar of approval. “The governor does not respect the state workforce, the governor does not respect teachers, the governor does not respect the work that we all do, and he does not respect the citizens that we serve.”

The noon rally in West Capitol Park — one of a dozen being carried out Monday afternoon across the state — drew roughly 1,500 workers, many equipped with noisemakers and whistles. The crowd and list of speakers also included members of the education unions UUP and NYSUT.

Conspicuous it their absence were members of CSEA, whose negotiating team was at the time at a negotiating session with Cuomo’s team. Spokesman Steve Madarasz said CSEA was at a “critical stage” in the talks. [Clarification: Capital Region CSEA leader Kathy Garrison spoke at the rally, though no one from the state office had a visible role and signage was, as far as I could see, nonexistent.]

In addition to the apparent breakdown in negotiations between Cuomo and PEF, the union a week and a half ago decided to respond to the governor’s decision to initiate the layoff process by releasing details of Cuomo’s contract offer to PEF, and the union’s counter. CSEA chose not to join in that disclosure, or comment on it in any detailed way.

Among the chants led by Brynien and others at Monday’s rally.

“Gov. Cuomo, whaddya say?/How many jobs did you cut today?”
“Gov. Cuomo, hear us roar, we won’t take it anymore.”
“Cuomo doesn’t care/Unless you’re a millionaire.”

Here’s video of a chunk of Brynien’s address:

State workers turn out by the thousands at rallies statewide to protest lack of respect and layoffs and to call for a fair contract

Albany – Thousands of state workers gathered at 13 different locations across the state today to send a
message to Governor Cuomo asking for fairness and respect. The rallies were in response to the announcement
last week that thousands of state jobs will be cut. The governor has threatened to eliminate 9,800 positions if
$450 million in work force savings could not be met.

“These rallies are as much about respect as they are about our jobs, the services we provide and our contract,”
said PEF President Ken Brynien.

The rallies were held in Albany, Buffalo, Binghamton, Elmira, Hauppauge, Hornell, Malone, Manhattan,
Poughkeepsie, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica and Watertown.

“The governor has stated time and again that he wants to work with the unions, and we are willing to work
with him where we can, but I don’t think his negotiators are on the same page as he is,” Brynien said.
Leaders of the New York State Public Employees Federation (PEF) began negotiations with the state March
16. The state offered the union one contract proposal. PEF returned with a counter proposal and continues to
await a formal response from the state. PEF’s proposal was fair and would achieve the savings needed to avoid
layoffs and preserve vital services.

“Since the state’s fiscal crisis began in 2008, 15,000 state jobs have been eliminated. Most agencies are
beyond bare bones and services are already at the breaking point,” Brynien added.

Brynien reminded the crowd in Albany that even if a contract agreement is reached and the $450 million in
savings realized, the governor has indicated he will still eliminate nearly 1,800 jobs as he closes facilities and
consolidates agencies.

“If the layoffs are allowed to happen, state services will be decimated. We will continue to fight to make sure
that doesn’t happen and the citizens of this state continue to receive the quality services they need and
deserve,” Brynien said.

Leading Seniors Groups Call on AARP to Oppose Cuts to Social Security

(Washington, DC) — Leaders from some of the nation’s most powerful groups representing seniors, including the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, the Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA), the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) and the Older Women’s League (OWL), today strongly criticized AARP for being willing to support cuts to Social Security benefits, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Strengthen Social Security Campaign Directors Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson, NCPSSM Acting CEO Max Richtman, ARA Executive Director Ed Coyle and OWL Executive Director Bobbie Brinegar made the following statements, which are excerpted below.

Eric Kingson, Co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign: “Given the economic challenges facing today’s older people, we should focus on how inadequate the nation’s retirement income system is to deal with the very serious risks confronting them. Instead of seeming to position itself as a reasonable inside deal maker that is open to benefit cuts, AARP should be educating about the need to selectively improve Social Security – the one economic security institution that works quite well.

Max Richtman, Acting CEO of NCPSSM: “While AARP is among the nation’s largest lobbyists, it clearly does not speak for all of America’s seniors. Seniors of all political persuasions, and even voters across all age groups, do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Offering up Social Security benefit cuts to gain access to closed- door discussions, where Let’s Make a Deal politics has become the norm, is not the way to address strengthening a program that touches the lives of virtually every American family.

ARA Executive Director Ed Coyle: “Our members hope that AARP will directly answer some basic questions. Do you support any cuts in benefits? Do you support raising the retirement age? Do you support means testing? These are questions that any senior’s organization ought to be prepared to answer directly.”

Bobbie Brinegar, Executive Director of OWL: “The Voice of Midlife and Older Women sincerely hopes that the Wall Street Journal’s depiction of what AARP is undertaking regarding Social Security was off base. Surely AARP would not want to disrespect their members’ wishes.”

Nancy Altman, Co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign: “Americans are overwhelmingly united in their position on Social Security…Politicians who think they can take cover through leading groups in Washington do so at their peril.”

RWDSU Local 1-S, Macy’s Sign Tentative Agreement

(left to right) Local 1-S Secretary-Treasurer Gail Rogers, Macy’s official Bert Kamin, RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum, Local 1-S President Ken Bordieri, and Local 1-S Vice President Angella Harding.

At a meeting at the RWDSU Local 1-S office in New York City last night, Macy’s and Local 1-S representatives signed a tentative five-year agreement. Local 1-S President Ken Bordieri and Macy’s official Bert Kamin signed the pact.

Afterwards, at the Pennsylvania Hotel in New York City, the contract was presented to Macy’s workers.

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security

Reaffirms that program must be strengthened to maintain critical benefits

WASHINGTON – AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security:

“Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations. Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.

“First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation’s deficit. Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less.

“Our focus has always been on the human impact of changes, not just the budget tables. Which is why, as we have done numerous times over the last several decades, AARP is engaging our volunteer Board to evaluate any proposed changes to Social Security to determine how each might – individually or in different combinations – impact the lives of current and future retirees given the constantly changing economic realities they face.

“Second, we have maintained for years – to our members, the media and elected officials – that long term solvency is key to protecting and strengthening Social Security for all generations, and we have urged elected officials in Washington to address the program’s long-term challenges in a way that’s fair for all generations.

“It has long been AARP’s policy that Social Security should be strengthened to provide adequate benefits and that it is sufficiently financed to ensure solvency with a stable trust fund for the next 75 years. It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries.

“AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation’s bills.

“Social Security is a critically important issue for our members, their families and Americans of all ages, especially at a time when many will have less retirement security than previous generations with fewer pensions, less savings and rising health care costs. And, as we have been for decades, we will continue to protect this bedrock of lifetime financial security for all generations of Americans.”

For more information, visit www.aarp.org.

About AARP

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a membership that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We produce AARP The Magazine, the definitive voice for 50+ Americans and the world’s largest-circulation magazine with over 35.1 million readers; AARP Bulletin, the go-to news source for AARP’s millions of members and Americans 50+; AARP VIVA, the only bilingual U.S. publication dedicated exclusively to the 50+ Hispanic community; and our website, AARP.org. AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

David McNally, AARP New York Manager of Government Affairs and Advocacy
One Commerce Plaza, Suite 706, Albany, NY 12260
780 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Toll-Free: 866-277-7442
Desk: 518-447-6713
Fax; 518-434-6949
E-Mail: dmcnally@aarp.org
Facebook: AARP McNally
Twitter: dtmcnally

AARP: OK, Cut Social Security Benefits

The move could rock Washington’s debate over how to revamp the nation’s entitlement programs.

By LAURA MECKLER

AARP, the powerful lobbying group for older Americans, is dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits, a move that could rock Washington’s debate over how to revamp the nation’s entitlement programs.

The decision, which AARP hasn’t discussed publicly, came after a wrenching debate inside the organization. In 2005, the last time Social Security was debated, AARP led the effort to kill President George W. Bush’s plan for partial privatization. AARP now has concluded that change is inevitable, and it wants to be at the table to try to minimize the pain.
“The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens,” said John Rother, AARP’s long-time policy chief and a prime mover behind its change of heart.

The shift, which has been vetted by AARP’s board and is now the group’s stance, could have a dramatic effect on the debate surrounding the future of the federal safety net, from pensions to health care, given the group’s immense clout.

“If they come around and say they’re ready to do something, it will be like the Arctic icecap cracking,” said former Sen. Alan Simpson, co-chairman of a White House commission on the deficit. He has frequently assailed the group as a barrier to progress.

At the same time, AARP runs the risk of alienating both its liberal allies, who have vowed to fight any benefit cuts, and its 37 million members, many of whom are deeply opposed to such a move.

To win them over, AARP is preparing coast-to-coast town-hall meetings to explain the problem and the possible solutions.

In an early sign of its new approach, AARP declined to join a coalition of about 300 unions, women’s groups and liberal advocacy organizations created to fight Social Security benefit cuts. “The coalition’s role was to kind of anchor the left, and our role is going to be to actually get something done,” said Mr. Rother.

Leaders of the coalition, dubbed Strengthen Social Security, agreed that AARP’s views will carry weight in Washington, but predicted the group would see a bigger backlash from its members than it expects.

“They are completely at odds with their membership,” said Nancy Altman, co-chair of the coalition. She said there is a “disconnect” between “elites,” who insist that benefits must be cut for the sake of a deal, and regular Americans, who are adamantly opposed. “AARP has been burned in the past,” she said. “My guess is that could happen to them again.”
Mr. Rother responded that “some of our members will no doubt be upset by any such effort, but I believe most would welcome a balanced and fair proposal that could strengthen the program for future generations and possibly even improve it for current vulnerable beneficiaries.”

There are limits to how far AARP is willing to go. The group will accept cuts, but won’t champion them, and it is particularly leery of certain concepts such as eliminating benefits for wealthier recipients.

It wants tax increases to fill most of the program’s financial hole, and it insists that a deal must be crafted apart from broader deficit-reduction negotiations.

AARP recently launched a multimillion-dollar ad campaign to fight against making Medicare and Social Security cuts part of the broader debt talks now under way. That has reinforced the impression among many in Washington that the group is opposed to dealing on Social Security at all.

AARP is one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington, with a big budget for TV advertising and decades of experience mobilizing its large and diverse membership to lobby their members of Congress. Last year, it had $1.4 billion in revenue, nearly half of which came from royalties on AARP-branded health-care and financial products.

In Washington, the group is best known for its influence on Social Security and Medicare, but it also has weighed in on transportation issues that affect older drivers, housing for low-income seniors and Congress’s recent financial-regulatory overhaul.

Social Security, which was created in 1935, is facing a demographic challenge as the baby-boom generation retires with fewer younger workers to support it. The program’s actuaries say that by 2036, the program will have exhausted its reserves and will only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits. Between now and 2036, the government, which has spent the money held in reserve, will have to borrow to meet those obligations.
As recently as late last year, President Barack Obama had hoped to reach a bipartisan agreement on Social Security during his first term, according to officials familiar with his thinking.

Republicans have appeared open to a deal as well, with House GOP leaders dropping their push for a partial privatization of the system. In recent months, a string of commissions has suggested fixes.

But fears about the political sensitivity of the program seniors vote with greater reliability than all other age groups have kept Social Security out of conversations over the deficit.
Conservative and liberal experts alike believe the program can be put on a solid financial footing for 75 years, which is the standard for solvency, if lawmakers implement fairly modest changes to collect more taxes and pay fewer benefits.

Republican opposition to tax increases and Democratic opposition to benefit cuts have stymied action.

As much as AARP’s previous opposition hindered the Bush effort, its involvement now could help determine the shape of a final deal, given lawmakers’ need to secure the support of AARP members.

“AARP swings a lot of weight with them,” said Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, another member of the president’s deficit commission.

AARP’s move was engineered by Mr. Rother, 64 years old, who has been at the center of every Social Security debate in the past three decades. He cut his teeth on the issue as the staff director of the Senate Aging Committee, working for a liberal Republican during negotiations in 1983 over the last bipartisan deal to rescue the program. He is registered as an independent.

He took a job with AARP in 1984. In 2005, he helped lead the opposition to Mr. Bush’s plan to let younger workers divert some of their taxes into private accounts to be invested in the stock market. He thought the market plan was too risky, but he also objected because it would have resulted in lower benefits for seniors.

In 2007, the group took what Mr. Rother calls a “baby step” toward the current position, telling Congress it wanted a bipartisan, balanced deal on Social Security. Then, in 2009, Mr. Rother concluded that the state of the nation’s finances required him to get ahead of the coming ax.

First came word that Social Security would pay out more in benefits than it collected in taxes in 2010, the first time that has happened 1983. Then an internal AARP poll found that young people were more doubtful than ever about the future of the program. If Americans lost confidence in the future of Social Security, Mr. Rother feared, their support for the program would erode.

The tipping point came when Mr. Rother learned that the White House was seriously considering tackling the program during Mr. Obama’s first term.

On AARP’s Policy Council, a group of volunteers who make policy recommendations to the AARP board, Mr. Rother faced intense opposition from members who see their role as protecting low-income seniors. He also faced resistance from the board.

His argument: Tax increases wouldn’t be enough to make the program solvent. The leading proposal for raising taxes increasing the amount of income subject to payroll taxes, the central financing mechanism for the program would fill less than half the hole. Moreover, Republicans were not going to accept a plan that didn’t include benefit cuts. The idea that both tax increases and benefit cuts were needed dovetailed closely with plans put forward by several separate commissions in Washington seeking to ease the U.S.’s long-term fiscal woes.

“There was good, healthy discussion,” said John Penn, chairman of Intek Plastics Inc., a member of AARP’s board. “Healthy tension usually results in better answers, but sometimes it’s painful in the process.”

When Mr. Obama considered making a Social Security proposal early this year, Mr. Rother indicated he would be supportive, said two people familiar with the matter. But the White House opted to hold off.

AARP is steadfast in its opposition to tackling Social Security as part of a grand budget deal the kind currently being discussed by a group of lawmakers led by Vice President Joe Biden saying Social Security didn’t cause the current deficit and shouldn’t be used to fix the problem. An AARP news release last month urged seniors to lobby their members of Congress against “political deals that cut their hard-earned benefits.”

It is also determined that any deal should be bipartisan, a stance influenced by backlash to the group’s support for Mr. Obama’s health-care law. AARP’s endorsement made a big difference in Democrats’ ability to secure passage, given that the bill included a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, the federal health-care plan for seniors.
The group lost about 300,000 members as a result and came under attack from some Republicans who accused AARP of supporting the law because the group, which helps sell insurance products, benefited financially.

On the Social Security question, the organization will have to sell its position to members which likely will be a major challenge. A February Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 84% of Americans age 65 and up opposed benefit cuts. Internal AARP polling shows similar resistance.

AARP plans to hold hundreds of events for seniors, in every state. At town halls and listening sessions, AARP plans to explain the political and budgetary realities facing the program by playing a game in which participants try to make Social Security solvent.
Romona Lindauer, 82, a Democrat and AARP member from Jasper, Ind., said she could “talk your ears off” with various spending that could be cut. “But not Social Security,” adding, “If the AARP went along with cuts, I would cancel my insurance through them and quit my membership right away.”

Other seniors believe benefits reductions are inevitable. “They have to save money somewhere,” said William E. Salyards, 77, a Republican from Concord, Calif. He opposes tax increases but thinks benefit cuts may be needed. “We have to do something.”