Skip to main content
SummerOnTheWay1
SummerOnTheWay1
August 1, 2025

📋 AARP Condemns Comments on Privatizing Social Security (AARP Article/Advocacy)

  • August 1, 2025
  • 1 reply
  • 2102 views

FROM THE ARTICLE.

 

AARP Condemns U.S. Treasury Secretary’s Comments on Privatizing Social Security.

And says it will fight any ‘back door’ efforts to privatize the program.

By Emily Paulin, AARP.

 

*** There are 27 comments on the AARP Website. Stop by to add yours. ***

 

Published July 31, 2025.

 

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that the “Trump accounts” created for children in the recently passed federal tax and budget bill are a “back door for privatizing Social Security.” AARP condemned the secretary’s comment that same day and reinforced its strong opposition against any efforts to privatize Social Security.

“President Trump has said that Social Security should be protected and strengthened, and his administration needs to be clear: Any form of Social Security privatization is unacceptable,” John Hishta, AARP’s senior vice president of campaigns, said in a statement issued on July 30.

 

USE LINK BELOW TO READ THE ARTICLE.

 

https://www.aarp.org/advocacy/privatizing-social-security.html

1 reply

R
RickS467730
Contributor ⭐⭐
August 1, 2025

Let’s be honest—this AARP headline is misleading. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent didn’t propose privatizing Social Security outright. He stated that the new “Trump Accounts” for children could act as a back door to privatization down the line—not that Social Security should be dismantled. That’s a big difference. Taking a statement like that out of context doesn’t serve the public—it fuels fear and shuts down real discussion.

 

Instead of reflexively condemning every mention of reform, AARP should be leading the conversation on how to modernize Social Security for future generations. The reality is that the program faces a serious financial shortfall within the next decade. And yet, every time a new idea is floated—especially something like partial privatization—it’s immediately labeled “unacceptable” without debate. That’s not protecting seniors; that’s protecting the status quo.

 

Countries like Sweden have already shown how a partial privatization model can work. Their system balances guaranteed public benefits with personal investment accounts, giving individuals more control while keeping a safety net in place. Even President Bush’s plan was modest and voluntary—diverting just 2 percent of payroll taxes into personal accounts, without touching benefits already promised.

 

If we don’t at least consider these types of options, we’re just pretending the problem doesn’t exist. Raising taxes or pushing back the retirement age may seem like easy fixes, but they hit lower-income workers the hardest. Offering people a chance to grow their retirement savings through long-term market performance is not radical—it’s responsible. Dismissing it out of hand does a disservice to the very seniors AARP claims to represent.

 

We need open minds, not automatic outrage.

 

I even ran the numbers. Had President Bush’s privatization plan been implemented in 2006, with just 3 percent of wages diverted into a personal account, someone earning $600 per week would have accumulated over $38,700 by now—compared to about $21,300 through traditional Social Security growth. That’s a difference of more than $17,000, without raising taxes or cutting benefits.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement