Social Security reform questions for the AARP

Rich Lowry of National Review has some very pointed questions for the AARP regarding its very hostile opposition to personal accounts. Here are my favorites:

Since Bush has said that any proposal won't affect anyone 55 years of age or older, what possible reason — other than sheer ideological hostility — do you have to oppose reforming the system?

Your group's advocacy suggests that reform puts at risk the benefits of current Social Security recipients, even though cutting those benefits is off the table. Are you routinely so dishonest, or is this a special case?

In 1950, 16 workers supported each retiree. By 2040, there will only be two workers per retiree. Does it occur to you that that is very bad news for workers? Or is your ultimate ambition to have each retiree supported by his own individual worker? Perhaps this worker can be made to fan his designated retiree with a palm frond and deliver him fruity drinks poolside?

The current system is already a bad deal for young people. Any tax increases or benefit reductions will make it worse over time. Do you realize that your members have grandchildren? Or do you believe the financial futures of those grandkids just don't matter much to your members?

You complain that allowing young people to have personal retirement accounts will add to the nation's debt. But if you cared about avoiding debt, why did you support the hellishly expensive Medicare bill?