
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, June 27, 1995                   TAG: 9506280010
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

MORE THAN THE AARP MUST BE CONVINCED

WYOMING Sen. Alan Simpson is a staunch Republican, but not one known heretofore as of the Gingrichian missile-throwing persuasion. So why has he gone ballistic against the American Association of Retired Persons?

In part, because AARP activities raise valid questions about its tax-exempt status. Not only does it do political lobbying, but it also grossed $173 million last year pitching insurance, mutual funds and prescription drugs to its members. As with a number of other organizations on the scene today, the line separating social or moral uplift from business enterprise and political aggrandizement is not always easy to locate.

But that isn't the only reason Simpson laid into the organization the other day for "hypocrisy and duplicity," and spoke of introducing legislation to restrict lobbying by social-welfare groups that receive federal funds. Simpson also was launching a pre-emptive strike against a potentially powerful foe of Medicare-cutting. The senator is, to quote political scientist Norman Ornstein, writing in The New Republic, "trying to discredit AARP as a politically neutral organization representing all senior citizens."

If the federal budget is to be balanced by 2002, as the Republicans have promised, then Medicare must be cut by hundreds of billions. That'll be hard to do anyway; congressional Democrats already are trying to stake a claim on the issue for the '96 elections. A powerful AARP in opposition could well make it impossible.

But even that is too constricted a view of the politics involved. Indeed, neutralizing the AARP won't be enough.

In 1988, Ornstein notes, the AARP leadership supported - as did the Reagan administration, and bipartisan congressional majorities - the modest Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act. Yet a furor nevertheless arose, because the act raised Medicare premiums for some affluent elderly; it was repealed the next year.

To make needed reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, bipartisan backing in Congress would help, as would neutralization of potential opponents like the AARP. But if Medicare cuts are to be sustained, inside-the-beltway support won't be enough. Across America, middle-class beneficiaries must be convinced that the cuts are good, or at least necessary.

And that includes not only the elderly themselves, but also the program's indirect beneficiaries - the children and prospective heirs of the elderly. In one form or another, many of them also will be picking up more burden in the cost-shifting entailed by Medicare reductions.

The task, in part, is to convince middle America of the fairness of the cuts as they emerge in detail. On this score, means-testing devices would help. The task, too, is to convince middle America of the necessity of the cuts - for the survival of Medicare as a self-funding program, as well as for overall budget-balancing. On this score, proposed savings need to be achieved not simply with spending cuts, but as part of an overall reform of health care.

Let's hope Washington is up to the task.

by CNB