washingtonpost.com: Welcome to Viewpoint. Our guest today is John Rother, AARP's Director of Policy and Strategy, to discuss the politics of the Social Security debate. Welcome, John. Let's get started!

John Rother: I welcome the chance to talk to so many of you on this very important issue -- the future of Social Security. I know many of you have questions and I'll try to respond to as many as possible, from all points of view. I encourage everyone to research this issue and to speak out when possible -- we all have a stake in strengthening Social Security!

_______________________

Westcliffe, Colo.: John, I think we are asking the wrong question -- why not have all congressmen and senators have the same Social security retirement system that the rest of us have ?? This would surely level out the playing field

John Rother: There is a lot of misinformation about Social Security floating around, and the idea that Members of Congress don’t pay into Social Security is one of the most prevalent myths. I am happy to have an opportunity to clear this up.

All Members of Congress do pay into Social Security at the same tax rate as all other workers and their benefits are calculated in exactly the same way. Prior to 1984, federal employees including Members of Congress did not participate in Social Security. Instead, they were covered by a separate pension plan. In 1983, legislation was enacted requiring all federal employees hired in 1984 or later to participate in Social Security. That legislation also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Mr Rother:

Why should young people bear an unequal burden in
maintaining a system that is going to treat them unfairly in
retirement by paying out only a fraction of what is promised?
Wouldn't it make more sense to allow them to protect and
save a small portion of their earnings in accounts so that
they will get a better rate of return?

John Rother: AARP feels strongly that the next generation of Americans deserves a Social Security program that is based upon adequate and secure benefits.

Since current payroll taxes are used to pay benefits to beneficiaries, transferring money into individual accounts means that less money will be available to pay promised benefits. To avoid major benefit cuts, younger workers would have to pay twice—once to fund the new account and again to meet Social Security’s current obligations. We don’t think passing the bill to future generations and leaving them with less retirement security is fair.


Diverting money away from Social Security and into individual accounts also involves trading some of today’s inflation protected, lifetime guaranteed benefit for an account subject to market risk and not guaranteed to last a lifetime or keep pace with inflation. Inflation, market turns or loss of employment can mean that your private account may not have enough money to provide an adequate benefit.

We need to work together to strengthen Social Security so that it will continue to be strong for our children and grandchildren. But private accounts that take money out of Social Security are not a solution.

_______________________

Malbourne, Fla: I'm just happy to see something from AARP that actually mentions changing Social Security to make it better rather than their usual mantra of the past few months which was just "do nothing, leave it alone, nothing's wrong with it, it doesn't need fixing."
Mike

John Rother: We are working hard to identify a range of solvency solutions that are fair to everyone. We believe the public needs to be more involved before we will be ready to reach an answer that all will accept. Everyone will need to give a little, and with that, we can put Social Security back onto a long term solid fiscal course.

_______________________

Palmdale, Calif.: If I take some of my money, earmarked for my retirement and invest it myself, how is this going to cost the American taxpayer billons of dollars?

John Rother: The idea of letting workers voluntarily invest part of their Social Security contributions in an individual account sounds appealing at first glance. But there are some real problems with doing this.

Diverting some of Social Security’s revenue into individual accounts would be expensive and worsen solvency. Since current payroll taxes are used to pay benefits to beneficiaries, transferring money into individual accounts means that less money will be available to pay promised benefits. Many experts predict that funding these accounts will cost between $750 billion and $2 trillion dollars over just the first 10 years they are in place.

Since the government is now running large annual deficits, finding the money to fund the accounts and make sure benefits get paid will likely require incurring massive amounts of new government debt, burdening all Americans with heavy interest costs

_______________________

Sanford, Fla.: I have heard that England has privatization of the retirement system but although initially well received the trend is for people to go back to the old defined benefits approach. Is this correct and if so what is the reason given for the change?

John Rother: You are correct to point out that Great Britain has experienced some very significant problems since they partially replaced their public pension system with private investment accounts similar to those proposed by President Bush. These private accounts ended up being quite expensive, with administrative costs eating up as much as 30 percent of assets.

Adair Turner, the Chairman of the UK’s Pension Commission has stated that “we have created the most complicated pension system in the world.” Also, the new system has not increased national savings and workers are retiring with less income than they did before the changes were made.

The British system has also been rocked by the “misselling” scandal, where many older workers were talked into buying an account when they would have been better off remaining in the traditional system.

As a result of these problems, Britain is looking at changing their system to make it more like the Social Security system we have in the United States.

_______________________

Enon, Ohio: Many of us are affected by the GPO & the WEP, my self included. Why are these laws still affecting the government workers, teachers, fire fighters and policeman and others when they need to be addressed by the House and Senate and voted upon to be repealed entirely. They have the attention of many law makers at this point in time, please take good advantage of the publicity. Why can't the law makers bring these laws to the table and correct them immediately.

Thank You Very Much
JoAnn
Government Worker

John Rother: Let me provide you with a bit of background on this issue. In 1977 and 1983 two laws affecting the Social Security benefits of government workers who worked in an other pension system instead of Social Security were passed. One contained the GPO or “offset” legislation, which affects the amount of Social Security benefits a non-covered worker receives as a spouse. The other included the WEP or “windfall” provisions, which affects the Social Security retirement or disability benefits of a person who has worked in both Social Security-covered work and non-Social Security-covered other government work.

The GPO or offset legislation was enacted to correct unequal treatment. Almost from the beginning, Social Security had a rule that did not permit married people, both of whom worked under Social Security, to receive both an earned Social Security worker’s benefit and a Social Security spousal benefit. They could draw only the higher of the two. However, other married workers —who got a government pension from a job not covered by Social Security— could receive the full spousal benefit from Social Security as well as the worker’s pension they earned instead of Social Security. There was no offset for them.

Thus, two-income couples in which one had paid into Social Security and the other had paid into another government pension plan received both spousal and worker benefits. Yet, two-earner couples in which both had paid into Social Security over their lifetime were subject to a “dual entitlement” rule and received smaller total benefits. So out of fairness, Congress extended the “dual entitlement” provision by passing the GPO legislation.

Prior to the enactment of the WEP in 1983, the Social Security benefit formula had an unintended effect. It treated a higher-wage worker from a government career not covered by Social Security, who had relatively few years of Social Security contributions, the same way it treated a long-term, lower-wage worker who paid into Social Security for his/her entire working life.

Congress deemed it appropriate to eliminate this Social Security “windfall.” They passed an alternative benefit formula. This formula applies to people who contributed to Social Security only part of their worklife and who earned benefits under another public pension system.

AARP has not taken a position on GPO or WEP and neither supports nor opposes either piece of legislation. AARP’s public policies are recommended by its all volunteer National Legislative Council and approved by its volunteer Board of Directors. The Board has considered the issues but chose not to adopt policy on either the government pension offset (GPO) or the windfall elimination provision (WEP). Many teachers and public employees have been told they are being singled out for unfair treatment, but the issue is complex and if there were an injustice, AARP would be there fighting to correct it. The Social Security Administration website at www.ssa.gov is an excellent resource.

_______________________

Ancorage, Alaska: Why is AARP so opposed to having a portion of SS payments invested in private accounts, when at the same time they are constantly advitizing in their magazine to invest in various Mutual Funds.

John Rother: We strongly support saving and investing for your future, but this should not be at the expense of Social Security. Social Security is there to provide guaranteed benefits that we can count on regardless of the market, regardless of inflation, and regardless of how long we live. So we need both to strengthen Social Security as a foundation, and then to build on that by saving and investing on top.

_______________________

East Lansing, Mich.: Why do you not confront Mr. Bush directly on his misconstruing of the debate over the need to deal with the long term stability of Social Security, by saying that his setting of the agenda, namely that Social Security's "return on investment" is very low and needs to be changed, to the real truth that Social Security is, in fact, a social insutance program in which about 37% of all the monies paid out in benefits each month go to families and children of those who never lived to age 65, and to those who becamae disabled while working and had loss of income. Mr. Bush's approach is as illogical as asking for a return of your fire insurance premiums because you never had to file a claim for a fire loss.

John Rother: I agree with your analogy. You make a very good point.

_______________________

Carmel, N.Y.: The AARP has distorted the debate big time. It has used scare tactics on its members. There is no plan to effect any person over 55. That's most of AARP. Why is the AARP fignting a plan to make the Social Security survive the next generation? Start telling the truth and get out of the way to a solution. So far you have been the main problem to a solution. The seniors payments are not to be reduced. Of course, the traditional solution has been to increase taxes on the workers. Since workers are living longer, raising the retirement ages is necessary. Making all income subject to FICA. Also setting up private accounts will assure in the long run that the giant Pinzi scheem won't screw the the people just starting out.
Stop the misinformation.

John Rother: Our analysis is based on the official projections from the Social Security Administration. We are not scaring our members, but educating them as to the pros and cons of various proposed changes. We certainly want Social Security to be strengthened for coming generations. Proposals to carve out private accounts from Social Security payroll contributions would increase risk, administrative costs, raise massive federal debt, and make the solvency problem even worse. So we feel that there are many better ways to keep the program on sound footing, including those that we outlined in the recent edition of our newspaper, the Bulletin.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: Why can't the income limit be raised beyond $90,000 for social security deduction? I realize this is technically a "tax increase" but this has to be the low end of what is considered middle class income!!

John Rother: AARP supports gradually raising the "cap" on taxable wages from $90,000 to about $140,000. In the past, about 90% of wages in the economy have been subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Over time, because wage growth has been higher for high earners, that percentage has dropped to about 85%. Increasing the "cap" to $140,000 is consistent with Social Security's history and is one of the most progressive solvency options on the table.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Bush has said his proposals would not change the benefits received by those over 55—the age at which one can become an AARP member. Since personal accounts would be voluntary, why do you not want to allow non-AARP members the option? Why are you fighting against what is best for your members grandchildren?

Adam Nicholson
FreedomWorks

John Rother: Our guide is indeed what we conclude would be best for our members grandchildren. Our objective is to strengthen Social Security for future generations and to preserve the critical role that it plays to support the quality of life for most Americans, young and old. Making carve-out private accounts voluntary would weaken the system my taking needed funds out of the program and by adding risk and administrative expense to the individual. Of course we strongly encourage everyone to save and invest for their future on top of Social Security.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: Expand upon personal accounts-not as a carve-out, but as a sperate additional income supplement.

John Rother: Thank you for the opportunity. AARP certainly supports the idea of personal accounts as an add-on to Social Security. Far too few workers are adequately saving for their retirement these days, and having a separate personal account, sort of a national 401K, if you will, could spur workers to save more money. A personal account on top of the Social Security benefit would ensure additional retirement savings while protecting the guaranteed, inflation-proof advantages of Social Security.

_______________________

Niskayuna, N.Y.: Am I correct in thinking that if up to one third of the money coming into the Social Security fund is diverted into private accounts , the government will have to borrow to cover the shortfall between Social Security contributions and payout in any given year to those receiving Social Security. The President has said nothing about how to fund his plan.

Concerned about our deficit!

Norris

John Rother: You are absolutely correct. Diverting money out of Social Security and into individual accounts would likely require significant amounts-- $752 billion to $2 trillion over the first 10 years. Given the fact that deficits are currently running over $400 billion per year, this level of government borrowing would be especially ill-advised.

_______________________

Portland, Maine: Hello Mr. Rother,
My question is this: while I understand that Social
Security is not in crisis, as the President would have us
believe, how would you speak to the criticism that the
Social Security trust fund is in fact with with worthless
IOUs? As an activist, campaigning on the preservation of
Social Security, this question is posed to me quite often,
and I never really know how to answer it.
Thank you,
Sarah

John Rother: Social Security is not in crisis, but it does face a long-term financial challenge. The Social Security trust fund today, $1.7 trillion, is a moral and legal obligation to future beneficiaries that the money will be there for them. The trust fund consists of special Treasury CD's, backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. Of course, to redeem that money in the future we will need to return to budget surpluses. A good economy is the best basis to assure that we can indeed afford to redeem the bonds in the trust fund.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why doesn't AARP come up with its own reform plan and publicize it widely so that the public debate changes around a viable alternative to the Bush plan that Congress, or at least the Democrats with some Republicans might support?

John Rother: We feel that our best role is to support good bipartisan plans that emerge from the Congress, and to urge members of congress to come together around a solution in much the same way that they did it 1983, when Social Security was last strengthed. So we are talking frequently to congressional leaders, sharing our members' views and our ideas. But ultimately only the congress can move this issue forward, and our role is to support good legislation when we can.

_______________________

Kingston, Tenn.: How can a program that offers an improved investment return on Social Security monies be a bad thing? I think AARP has it all wrong. They should be trying to improve the investment money interest return, seeing that the funds American's put in get more control over their money and insuring that distribution of these funds is done fairly and honestly without politicians getting their hands on the money. AARP seems to have taken the Democratic party view of doing nothing constructive but spending a lot of time criticizing others.

John Rother: Social Security provides guaranteed, lifetime, inflation protected benefits.

While some individuals might earn a higher return under a system of private accounts, those returns are not guaranteed. Remember, the stock market goes down as well as up and it can stay down for some time. Many retirees who thought they were set financially are having to cut their budgets significantly or return to work because the value of their investments has declined over the past few years.

If part of Social Security's guaranteed benefits were transformed into a system of individual accounts, many people, particularly older women, would face the risk of outliving their retirement savings or seeing their purchasing power eroded by inflation.

_______________________

Fremont, Calif.: Comments:
Social security started out as a minor safety net at the old retiring age. But it has balooned into major dole out. Politicians will give you anything for votes. We require a discipline to know that there is no free lunch.
The system can be salvaged and improved only with a discipline and responsibility from all sides. Every one has to give something.
A few steps to consider:
1. Separate the SS funds from General revenue funds. SS Money is meant only for SS and not for anything else. Recover all the 'I owe yous' over a period of 10-15 years from General funds. The debt must be called. NO future co-mingling of SS money by President or Congress.
2. Portion ( <30%) of SS funds should be allowed for self direction into bonds and mutual funds by the future recipients. To fill the gap, these funds can be borrwed to pay for current recipients but again no comingling with general funds. SS must be made to stand on its own feet.
3. Current benefits must be looked at really hard for some trimming - may be across the trimming by a certain age. No sacred cows. We are doling out too much.
4. It is critical to include drugs but it is not imperative that the drugs cannot be imported at a cheaper price. A fair competition must be implemented among drug companies. Low cost manufactured foreign drugs should be allowed once they pass the FDA tests.Let the tax payers finance ( borrow)the cost of these tests in an effort to lower the drug cost.
5. The current SS system can be tweaked but not scrapped entirely.

President 's proposal is very dangerous. It seems motivated by the Insurance companies who are salivating to grab that money for reckless investments.As looking at the society's habbits, there is hardly any savings in the society but the older people have to be taken care of. We cannot let the society on a reckless path. Elderly built the foundations of the existing society- good or bad, hence they must be taken care of.
It is a serious concern that so many private companies' pension funds are failing, how these people are going to survive in their old age? Currently, the best are those who work for the Government at the tax payers expense. The current scenario is totally unacceptable. A gradual change ( Try as you go) must be the policy.

John Rother: Thanks for some constructive suggestions. I agree that broadly shared adjustments (or "tweaks") can be adequate to strengthen the program. Social Security is supposed to be separate from the general federal budget today, but is usually not presented separately in discussions of the deficit. We also think we should look at investing some of the trust funds in the market, if we can get higher returns and not compromise safety of principal.

_______________________

Tacoma, Wash.: Why are the RICH exempt from paying SS TAX on all their income unlike those earning below $90,000? This is unfair taxation! Let's get everyone to pay the full 8% on everything they earn - no exceptions!

PS: A flat rate no exemption Income Tax would be also a great improvement.

If you live in the United States I would think you would PROUDLY pay your fair share.

John Rother: Social Security should indeed ask those who are doing quite well to contribute more, for the sake of strengthening the program. The idea behind a wage cap is that millionaires don't need huge benefit checks from Social Security, so there could be some limit. But the formula has fallen behind wage growth in recent years, so moving the cap up to $140,00 or $150,000 (about where it would be under the 1983 policy) would make a major contribution toward solvency.

_______________________

Frederick, MD: On the AARP website, you support changing the way the trust fund assets are invested to increase the rate of return. Why would the government investing Social Security trust fund money in indexed stock market funds be better than individuals being able to choose, even from a small selection, how to invest a portion of their payroll taxes?

John Rother: There are some important differences between transforming part of Social Security into a system of private accounts and diversifying the Trust Fund investments.

The most important difference is how risk is spread. With private accounts, each individual would bear the risk for his or her investments. With collective investment, part of the trust funds as a whole would be invested, and risk would be spread across the whole population and all generations.

Administrative costs would also be lower with collective investment.

Finally, diversifying trust fund investments would serve as a "lock box."

_______________________

Maplewood, N.J.: I agree with the Administration's proposal. If I had all the money I paid and invested in plain vanilla CD's I would be far richer today than I am now.

John Rother: Of course, if you had all the money you paid in for auto, fire, and health insurance over the years, you would indeed be richer as well. Social Security is not designed to be an investment program, but an insurance program against disability, the dealth of a family breadwinner, and the inability to continue to work in your older years. A fairer assessment of Social Security's value to you would recognize that it provides disability coverage worth $300,000 and life insurance protection worth $400,000.

_______________________

Lake Park, Minn.: I attended your presentation at the Hubert Humphrey Institute in Minnesota. Good job. Please do not back down from the list of possible ways that AARP has suggested to "fix" Social Security. Private accounts--great--but never as a part of Social Security.
I won't be able to be a part tomorrow, as I chair a senior citizens club that meets at the same time.
Marion Jacobson

John Rother: Thanks for coming out to a high-quality debate in Minneapolis last month. We have put forward many suggestions for ways that would strengthen Social Security while still preserving the role it plays in American life, and we hope these options will be used by the congress when it finally crafts legislation. There is no need to radically change Social Security when a series of modest adjustments would be adequate and fair.+

_______________________

Westminster, Md.: Why not allow Social Security to invest some of their funds in stock and bond index accounts in order to get a higher return? This would be much more efficient than having millions of individual investors doing the same thing under personal accounts. It would also negate one of the main reasons for President Bush's call for personal accounts.

John Rother: We agree this idea is worth investigating. Most pension plans do this, of course, as does the Canadian Social Security system. Much cheaper, much less risk, and also good for the economy.

_______________________

Anchorage, Alaska: How can the AARP justify opposing an increase
in the retirement age when life expectancies
continue to rise? (How can we have our cake and
eat it too?)

John Rother: The normal retirement age is currently increasing slowly from 65 to 67. For everyone born in 1960 or later, the age for full benefits will be 67.

While many of us may be able to work longer and, in fact, plan on working longer, extending work life has an unfair impact on those who are in jobs requiring physical labor (health care aides, waitresses, construction workers).

We also know that age discrimination continues to be a real problem for many older workers.

As the workforce ages, labor shortages may lead to better employment options for older workers and many may choose to extend their worklives.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: At what point is AARP going to sell us out like they did on the Medicare Bill? I am sure the the orgaization is just waiting for the proper cash cow to be offered to them.

John Rother: Never. Our Social Security position is based on long established and deeply held values. Our policy decisions have nothing to do with any product or services offerings, and we have many times supported public policy changes that would limit income to the Association. Our responsibility to our members, today and tomorrow, always comes first.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Social Security is only one factor in the equation that determines how much we save for retirement. Shouldn't Congress approach the challenge of inadequate retirement savings systematically and look at all the programs that impact retirement savings (Social Security, IRA's, 401ks, pension plans, etc.) collectively in designing a solution to the problem?
Bruce

John Rother: You raise an excellent point. At AARP we believe that a secure retirement rests on four pillars: Social Security, pensions and savings, health insurance and earnings from work.

We need to make sure that all of the pillars are in place. Unfortunately, for too many Americans Social Security is the only pillar standing strong.

_______________________

New York City, N.Y.: Have no questions since I have read a lot about the problem from everyone's point of view.

I would like to comment,however, that I think that much more time should be spent explaining the problem to young people who fervently believe that there will be NO Social Security benefits for them when they are ready to retire (a good possibility if the Bush plan is bulldozed through).

John Rother: I think this is actually a profound comment, as each of us can take the initiative to talk to our own children and grandchildren about the role Social Security can and will play in our lives. Younger people are generally more skeptical of any large programs, but I believe that we have an obligation to them to make the program finally solvent sooner rather than later, precisely because they should have more confidence that it will be there for them.

_______________________

Longmont, Colo.: 1. In the mid 80's, legislature was passed increasing our contribution to the social security fund to the current 12.4%; a move, in part, to prepare for the baby boom generation's impact on the fund.

2. Not only have the income levels of the baby boomers far eclipsed past generations making thier contributions that much greater; this the first generational group to have such large numbers of women joining the work force and hence contributing those monies to the fund.

If the above is factual, why are there not huge surpluses of money in the fund?

John Rother: One of the goals of the 1983 reform package was to build up the Trust Fund reserves to pre-fund a portion of the boomers retirement.

While this has worked-- the Trust Fund has about $1.7 trillion in assets--changing demographics mean Social Security has a shortfall over the long-term.

_______________________

La Verne, Calif.: President Bush has said no one 55 or over will have to worry about receiving 100% of their Social Security under his proposed reform. Do you believe his ascertains are correct?

John Rother: Technically most private account proposals do not change benefits for those 55 and older. However, almost all involve other changes, such a massive new debt or higher income taxes, that would affect all taxpayers, including those over 55. Heavy new debt is particularly threatening, since it will put even more pressure behind efforts to cut back on Medicare and other vital healthcare benefits.

_______________________

New York, NY: Is it true that Social Security will be bankrupt in another 20 years, if measures are not taken to prevent this from happening?

John Rother: No. According to the Social Security trustees, the program will be able to pay full benefits until about 2041. After that, continuing income from the payroll tax would allow the program to pay about 70% of promised benefits.

_______________________

Boise, Idaho: I am on Social Security but also must work outside the home to make ends meet; I work on June 14th. Will there be any printed material I can access online after the fact?

John Rother: While I am sorry you can't join us live for the chat, we have alot of useful material on Social Security in our website. The transcript of this chat will also be posted.

Please check out our website: www.aarp.org/socialsecurity.

_______________________

Manchester, CT: Like most things in life - there probably is some middle ground on this issue that even the politicians can agree on. What do you think some of those middle ground policy solutions might be?

John Rother: I believe there is a small sliver of "middle ground" in this debate that could be the key to a legislative solution. It would strengthen Social Security solvency in "traditional" ways (mostly by asking those who are highest income to contribute more or accept less) and then establish a system of private accounts on top of and separate from Social Security. Of course, the devil is always in the details, but the point is that a middle ground compromise is indeed possible if private carve-out accounts are dropped.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn.: Why do nearly all discussions regarding Social Security reform focus solely on retirees? I am disabled and worked to earn my Social Security Disability benefit. I am 52 and have severe vision and hearing impairments along with a systemic autoimmune disease requiring 15 medications.

John Rother: Thank you for pointing out that Social Security is not just about retirement. It also provides valuable disability and survivor benefits. In fact, for a young worker and his family, the value of Social Security's disability protections are equivalent to a private disability policy worth about $300,000 and the survivor benefits are equivalent to a private life insurance policy worth about $400,000.

Many of the changes to Social Security would impact disability and survivors' benefits and the effects on these important aspects of Social Security must be considered in the debate.

_______________________

Walnut Creek, Calif.: What % of AARP members do you think support AARP's position on Social Security changes? AARP certainly doesn't speak for me. I disagree vehemnetly with your position which, I believe, has been deceitful or, at best, not fair.

John Rother: A very strong majority (over 3 out of 4)of AARP members support our overall position on Social Security, but of course there will always be some amount of disagreement. I certainly respect our members who have different views from the majority. I view my job as coming up with the best policies that support the long term best interests of older Americans, taking into account the views and concerns of our current members. We do a very extensive amount of polling and listening to our members, as well as younger persons, and try very hard to be responsive.

_______________________

Independence, Mo.: You say we're in a stalemate. Why does it appear we're in a stalemate when plenty of Congressional representatives (both Senators and Congressman) are not in favor of private accounts nor should they be? And that being the case, why aren't we moving forward with solution based recommendations (which have been put forward previously) that will ultimately resolve this issue moving us off, apparently, dead center?

John Rother: I'm actually optimistic that the American people will help resolve the stalemate. I think congressional leaders now recognize that private accounts do not have enough support, so they are refocusing their efforts on more traditional approaches to solvency. Whether we can move forward this year depends on many other factors, but I do think that ultimately our democratic system will reflect the views and preferences of most Americans.

_______________________

Palos Verdes Estates, Calif.: The ranks of the retired is swelling for two basic reasons. First, the baby boomers will soon retire and second we are all living about a decade longer. The second trend may continue to expand with every new medical breakthrough.

Do we need social security reform or a different approach to retirement in total?

Fred Held
CEO IOS Medical

John Rother: This is a great question, one that we take very seriously at AARP. We call it "Reinventing Retirement." It's about more choices, more opportunites to stay involved, and better health. Of course, we still need a strong Social Security system as a foundation for all this. Stay tuned for more on this in future months.

_______________________

Auburn, Indiana: Do you save these Q & A's and have them available at AARP.org for review later? We have good discussions in our household with our kids in their 20's now. Surprisingly, they don't go along with Bush's views; however, they do believe they will never get any SS benefits. I tell them we heard the same thing when we were in our 20's and starting out in the workworld but it takes trust and a firm belief in this commitment from one generation to the next. It's between all of us and should not be one man's decision.

John Rother: I am glad to hear that you are talking with your children about Social Security. You are right-- Social Security embodies our nation's deepest committments between generations.

We do save the transcripts from these on-line chats and will post them on our website. You can find a copy of today's chat, as well as many other useful materials on Social Security and other issues at our website: www.aarp.org.

_______________________

Noblesville, Ind.: John
AARP has suggested some very sound alternatives to solving or at least partially solving the funding crisis with Social Security. What is AARP doing and what can we do to insure that our lawmakers understand some of these suggestions. I have emailed our congressmen and received 'boiler plate' reply's insuring me that our best interests are being looked after, but I am skeptical that the message is being heard.
Thank You
Bill

John Rother: It is important that Members of Congress continue to hear from their constituents, especially when they are home on recess. Any noise you can make at the community level about your concern with private accounts carved out of Social Security, be it in local newspapers or radio talk shows, will not go unnoticed by you Represenatative and Senators. Congress hears from AARP continuously in Washington, but they also need to hear from concerned citizens in their home districts.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Our hour is up. Thank you to John Rother and AARP for answering our questions.

John Rother: Thanks to everyone for participating. The debate continues, but hopefully on the basis of greater understanding and common purpose.
John

_______________________