Dealing in death sure is profitable. But maybe America is wising up? Does this organization- that specializes in killing the unborn- deserve ANY of your money to subsidize the purchase of the instruments of death? Richards shows us the deceitful misrepresentation of what they offer… Why do we rewards liars? Why do we finance the killing of innocent, unborn babies? Have we completely lost our sense of morality?
GOP report: AARP stands to make $1 billion from ObamaCare, IRS should investigate
posted at 9:05 pm on March 30, 2011 by Allahpundit
Good stuff. AARP is the Death Star of American entitlements, so if the GOP wants to reform Social Security and Medicare, they’re going to have to fire some photon torpedoes. This one could do a little damage: Seniors have always been wary that O-Care will siphon off money from Medicare, which makes it exceedingly odd that their chief lobbyist came out in support of the legislation. In fact, CBS reported in 2009 that up to 60,000 seniors had canceled their memberships in disgust over it. Hence the political value of today’s report: On the eve of a Republican push on entitlements, the GOP’s planting another seed of doubt in seniors’ minds about AARP’s integrity. Won’t be decisive, but since fiscal conservatives are going to be smeared nine ways to Sunday once our “adult conversation” on mandatory spending begins, the opposition should be made to answer for its sins too.
# Since 2002, income generated from AARP membership dues has increased 32%, or $60 million. However, during this same period, income derived from AARP’s business relationships, primarily with insurance companies, has nearly tripled, increasing by $417 million. Royalty payments from for-profit companies comprised nearly 46% of AARP’s revenue in 2009, while membership dues totaled just 17% of total revenues.
# As a result of the new health care law, the Obama Administration estimates more than 7 million seniors will lose their current Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in a massive migration of seniors to Medigap plans. AARP is the nation’s leading provider of Medigap plans and has a contract in which AARP financially gains for every additional Medigap enrollee.
# Based on low, mid and high-range estimates, AARP stands to financially gain, over and above the millions of dollars they currently receive from United, between $55 million and $166 million in 2014 alone as a result of new Medigap enrollees stemming from the health care law’s cuts to MA, which AARP strongly endorsed.
# Under the midrange estimate and under their current contract, AARP’s financial gain from the health care law could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years. This is because AARP will see their royalty payments increase as seniors are forced out of MA plans and buy AARP Medigap plans instead.
More from the AP, noting that the Republicans behind the report are now calling on the IRS to probe AARP’s tax-exempt status:
The business side of the organization runs money-making enterprises. The most lucrative involves “branding” a series of health insurance plans for seniors and older adults with the AARP name, akin to the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
The public policy side is a civic organization that acts as a watchdog over Social Security and Medicare, representing 37 million members and consumers generally. Boards overseeing the business and tax-exempt social policy branches have overlapping directors.
Royalties from licensing the use of AARP’s name earned $657 million for the organization in 2009, or nearly half its total revenue, according to publicly available records. Health insurance plans accounted for most of that.
“During this investigation it became very clear that despite its privileged tax-exempt status, in many cases, AARP represents a for-profit entity, in fact, an insurance company,” Boustany said.
It’s like Oprah for seniors, if Oprah had made it her life’s work to defend unsustainable levels of federal spending. For more, read Robert Bluey’s post at Red State reminding us that it was Bush’s Medicare Part D bill that first started pouring money into AARP’s coffers. Look on the bright side: If the left ever does make a serious move towards single-payer, the Death Star will be there to protect its new Medigap insurance racket. Silver lining, no?
Imagine that. AARP supported Obamacare .. not because they thought it was good for the country. The knew it meant a windfall for them as the fed policy would force Seniors into a market where they dominate. AARP talks the talk, but a close look at their policies, their long standing position on a wide range of issues.. and you learn that they are quite insincere .. despite their dramatic marketing effort to paint themselves as some kind of friend to Seniors.
An they claim to be “Non Profit”.. Time to define “non profit”.. and to reconsider the tax benefits they receive with the self described designation.
We’ve devolved into this…. Just a friendly reminder of what’s to come?
Obama’s friends, biographer and confidant thinks those who are not citizens of America should vote for the President of America. What does that tell you about Democrats? They’ve “Progressed” beyond America.. and want an authoritarian regime with all local power and control ceded to a Massive Centralized Regime. This Central Politburo would dictate to the world who would live, die, starve, or curry favor. The collectivist version of heaven on earth.
By Mark Tooley on 3.28.11 @ 6:06AM
Leftist utopians have never wanted to admit serious threats to
liberal democracy, whether from Soviet Communism during much of the
20th century, or the Nazi-Fascist-Japanese militarist alliance of
70 years ago, or in more recent years from jihadist Islam. The
denial is odd, because the enemies whose good will the leftist
utopians adamantly insist upon would, if empowered, almost
certainly prioritize the suppression and eradication of these very
same leftist utopians.
A recent example as been the Religious Left groups enraged
at New York Congressman Peter King’s hearings on radical Islam in
the U.S. According to these critics, the hearings are McCarthyite
and echo the interment of West Coast Japanese Americans during
World War II. Any suggestion that domestic radical Islam might pose
a security risk is portrayed as an assault against all Muslim
Cleverly, when recently pressed by a Washington
Post reporter about church groups criticizing him, Congressman
King dismissed them as “School of the Americas” types who would “be
against me anyway.” True enough. His reference was to religious
leftists who for decades have campaigned against U.S. Army training
at Fort Benning, Georgia for Latin American military officers.
Ostensibly, it is a “School of the Assassins” where the U.S.
military teaches colleagues from the south in the ways of
authoritarian repression. That campaign caught a second wind in the
1990s after the discovery of some dusty “torture” manuals at the
The booklets were mostly relics from the 1960s, available
at the school for only several years, and possibly never used. Out
of over one thousand pages, two dozen or so sentence fragments were
deemed offensive, including one cryptic reference to procuring
information “involuntarily.” Hence they became “torture” manuals.
The manuals were hastily sequestered, undoubtedly more frequently
read by the school’s zealous critics than ever by any students
there. And the school even changed its name partly to mollify
opponents. But the angry protests continue, even though Latin
America’s old rightist regimes are long gone. Many of the aging
protesters, including the defrocked Maryknoll priest who leads them
by literally living outside the gates of Fort Benning, are
left-over fellow travelers of the Sandinistas and Salvadoran FMLN
guerillas of the 1980s. They are still frustrated that Castro-style
revolution never swept Latin America, for which they doubtless
blame the school. Even Hugo Chavez’s rants, and Daniel Ortega’s
return to power in Nicaragua, have not brought them
By citing the School of the Americas zealots, Congressman
King aptly captured the myopic, fringe nature of his religious
critics. One such critic, the Faith and Public Life Institute,
denounced King for not realizing he is opposed by a “broader faith
community” that is showing a “unified front on the issue of
religious discrimination and bigotry.” King was reminded that an
“attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths,” which has
galvanized “diverse faith leaders” to implore him to “instead
pursue investigations that protect American values and our national
security interests.” These “faith leaders” of course have not
typically articulated what America’s “national security interests”
are, since many of them are pacifist. And most of them, as
utopians, do not recognize significant national security threats.
In their view, America’s violent enemies are primarily victims of
U.S. injustice understandably crying out for redress. Apologies,
mediation, and billions in economic aid would salve their
The “broad” religious coalition against Congressman King
(my assistant Eric LeMasters reported on their press
is primarily the National Council of Churches and its affiliated
Mainline Protestant groups, all of them declining, plus Evangelical
Left fixture Jim Wallis and deposed National Association of
Evangelicals lobbyist Richard Cizik, who later found a patron in
George Soros. Almost none of the protesting groups, except Cizik
years ago before he turned leftward, have for decades expressed
significant interest in America’s safety. Instead, nearly all have
aggressively adopted an extreme multiculturalism refusing to admit
even proudly self-described jihadist Islam as a threat. Any
insinuations to the contrary evince “Islamophobia.” Evidently,
terrorists ardently animated by their brand of Islam are simply to
be called extremists, without reference to their motivating
religious impulse, no matter how many millions globally may follow
King’s hearings have included U.S. Muslims who warned
about radical Islam’s threat to their own families, mosques and
communities. One witness, from the American Islamic Forum for
Democracy, lamented about jihadism: “We can close our eyes and
pretend it doesn’t exist, we can call anyone a bigot or Islamophobe
for even talking about it.” Of course, King’s Religious Left
critics prefer exactly this ostrich approach, emphasizing all
Muslims as victims, and deriding all critics of radical Islam as
bigots and xenophobes. Ironically, these self-proclaimed mostly
Christian defenders of American Muslims, by portraying them chiefly
as victims, while insisting that radical Islam poses no threat, are
only making American Muslims more vulnerable to inroads by
jihadists. “I know that I also was deeply moved by their
testimony,” the chief of the National Council of Churches
grudgingly admitted about witnesses at King’s hearings who
testified of radical Islam’s impact on their own families,
including a father whose jihadist son shot up an Arkansas U.S. Army
recruiting station. “I don’t doubt the reality of
But Religious Left utopians would prefer to ignore that
“experience” in favor of their own dreams of an imaginary world
Religious “Leftists” would usher in the likes of Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega.. not to mention radical Islam. They’re certified nuts.
On Sunday morning, The Blaze posted a story about the “return” of ACORN on the world-wide scene. While reading through some of the background material on that story, I noticed something significant.
ACORN founder Wade Rathke has been busy mocking the story that broke on The Blaze earlier this week about a multi-front plot to target JP Morgan Chase in an attempt to crash the stock market. We’ll look at his criticisms in a second. No need to bury the lede here. Rathke seems to answer the question we’ve been asking all week — does bank plotter Stephen Lerner still work for SEIU? Rathke says Lerner is still very much on the SEIU payroll:
Lerner has not been “fired” by SEIU as they report. He was placed on paid leave last fall to think through his contribution to the union, but was certainly present at the recent international executive board meeting.
This is important for several reasons — not the least of which is that this ties the plot to destroy the American economy much more closely within the ranks of the organization that time and time again President Obama has declared to be most important to him strategically and politically.
If you are not familiar with our original report — click here.
From the beginning, we have speculated about Lerner’s work status. We knew early on that a blog critical of SEIU had reported on the “apparent firing” of Lerner last fall. But we also knew that Lerner was introduced at the Left Forum conference as “SEIU.” And we soon learned that Lerner had an active voicemail account on his phone line at SEIU. Glenn Beck speculated numerous times on radio and TV about Lerner’s work status and noted that repeated calls to SEIU had not been returned.
I’d wondered all along what it would really take to get fired from SEIU. Is there a union of workers at the union? Maybe Lerner filed a grievance!
Rathke’s post not only claims that Lerner is on “paid leave,” he affirms Lerner’s status as a revered strategist in the labor movement:
Lerner has written a number of well circulated papers over the last year expanding on his analysis of the impact of the recession and the need to frame larger campaigns around accountability of banks and the financial system for working Americans. He is an avowed advocate of developing campaigns to finally bring them to account.
Rathke seems to find a logical contradiction in our connections between some of Lerner’s key assertions:
While labeling Lerner an ex-SEIU official who was signaling that unions and community organizations were “dead,” also reported hook-line-and-sinker that in May, according to Lerner, there would be days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase signally the beginning of the anti-banking jihad. Hmmm. An ex-official issuing the call to “dead” troops to storm the barricades? Does something not add up here?
Does it add up? He doesn‘t really deal with a counter argument to Lerner’s contention about unions and community organizations being “dead,” but it seems to me that a desperate official, dealing with desperate forces, backed by astounding fiscal resources, might be able to reasonably storm a barricade or two.
While Lerner’s articulation of a well-orchestrated plot to bring down the stock market may sound a little hyperbolic, Rathke is intent on convincing us that Lerner is actually known for his reasoned understatement:
I’ve known and worked with Lerner for decades and his long experience with union lawyers and what used to be called “corporate campaigns,” has made him one of the more careful commentators on his work that I know. The rest of us are verifiable flap jawed loose lips compared to Steve!
Read the rest of this article Here