Gino Piroli – 2/28/05

This page was last updated on March 2, 2005.

Swift-boat ad backers take aim at the AARP; Gino Piroli; Beaver County Times; February 28, 2005.

Sometimes it’s a challenge to critique Mr. Piroli’s columns. Here’s why. Mr. Piroli tends to intertwine cursory mention of the subject issue with name-calling and personal attacks on groups and individuals that disagree with his position. This is one of those columns.

As you will see below, even the column’s title is misleading.

Below is a critique of the relevant portion of the subject column.

“I’ve criticized the senior citizens organization AARP for not being out front in support of programs for the group they represent. Imagine what a surprise it was to read that there is also a powerful lobby rallying against AARP, but not for the same reasons.

“US Next [sic], the group that created and supported the ‘Swift Boat Veterans’ ads attacking presidential candidate John Kerry, now has its guns aimed at AARP because it opposes President Bush’s Social Security reform plan.”

[RWC] If Mr. Piroli is going to bash someone, he could at least get the name correct. The group to which the column refers is USA Next.

I’d also like to know the source of the claim that USA Next “created and supported the ‘Swift Boat Veterans’ ads.” A New York Times article claimed USA Next hired as consultants the same consultants who advised the SBVT, but that’s not Mr. Piroli’s allegation. Mr. Piroli alleges USA Next produced and paid for the SBVT ads. That’s why I wrote above that the column’s title is misleading.

“This is the same group that loved AARP when it helped pass the president’s Medicare and prescription drug plan.”

[RWC] Given they are competitors for membership, I doubt USA Next ever “loved AARP”. But if USA Next had “loved AARP,” so what? While I support much of President Bush’s agenda, I disagree with his apparent position on illegal immigration. It’s common to agree with a group on one issue but disagree on another. Does Mr. Piroli support each and every position taken by Democrat leadership? Oops, never mind; I know the answer. <g> Here’s a better example. Though the Soviet Union was an ally during World War II, did we – excluding the liberal elite – “love” the USSR?

“US Next [sic] has been described as ‘a soft-money slush fund for a single Republican-friendly industry, pharmaceuticals, the drug companies.’ The group is expected to spend $10 million in this campaign and will use the same tactics they used on Kerry.”

[RWC] Who described USA Next in this fashion, Mr. Piroli? This quote came from The Washington Monthly, a pro-liberal publication. If we’re going to call USA Next “a soft-money slush fund,” the same label applies to AARP.

USA Next describes itself this way. “USA Next is a national project of the United Seniors Association which is celebrating its 14th anniversary as the non-partisan, 1.5 million-plus nationwide grassroots network Uniting the Generations for America's Future. United Seniors Association works to expand investment and retirement freedom, health freedom, tax freedom, national security and economic freedom for American families, their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.”

USA Next is an IRS 501(c)(4) organization, just as AARP. Essentially this means the group is a tax-exempt lobbying group. Contributions to these groups are not tax deductible.

“Don’t sell US Next [sic] short. It has run ads on Fox News, and their president, Art Linkletter, has been interviewed on the network, which I refer to as ‘the White House station.’ It will use the same tactics as in the swift-boat ads: Don’t address the issues or seek to verify accusations - just attack and attack.”

[RWC] When he wrote that he refers to FNC as “the White House station,” I guess Mr. Piroli forgot the following pieces of advice. First, a common adage is, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Second, a quote from the Bible says, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone.”

Let’s look at Mr. Piroli’s “glass house.” In every Piroli column since at least 2002 mentioning President Bush and/or Republicans, the column has been little more than a name-calling exercise. Go to the Pundits page of this web site for some examples. What about Mr. Piroli’s patron, the Beaver County Times? Likewise you will find the editorials are consistently anti-Bush. Finally, the Times even endorsed John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

If Mr. Piroli believes FNC is “the White House station,” it would be interesting to learn his labels for ABC, the Beaver County Times, CBS (Remember Dan Rather’s forged documents?), CNN, The New York Times, Newsweek, NBC, NPR, The Washington Post, et cetera.

Regarding the SBVT ads, Mr. Piroli has a selective memory when he said the SBVT didn’t address the issues. John Kerry made his Vietnam service a centerpiece of his campaign. This made Kerry’s Vietnam service and “anti-war” activities campaign issues. The SBVT ads – and the companion book “Unfit for Command” – addressed these issues. One of the results of the accusations was that Kerry had to retract previous claims he made about his service. His erroneous claim to have spent “Christmas in Cambodia” is only one example. As of this writing, the SBVT hasn’t had to retract any of its statements. If the Kerry campaign had been able to find a “chink in the armor” of the SBVT, you can bet we would have heard about it. As of January 30, 2005, John Kerry still had not signed Standard Form 180 that would authorize the full release of his service records.¹

“What better way for a pro-Bush group to label the AARP as liberal, pro-gay sex and anti-U.S. soldier. Flush with the success of their slime tactics, US Next can manipulate any situation without regard to truthfulness.”

[RWC] AARP deserves the “liberal” label. All you need to do is look at the legislation it supports. Support of the Medicare prescription drug program was only one example. AARP politics is the reason I’m not a member. I don’t belong to USA Next either.

If USA Next labeled AARP as “pro-gay sex and anti-U.S. soldier,” I suspect those would be unfair charges.

“I like the AARP’s approach to the Social Security issue by saying if members wanted to gamble with seniors’ money, they would play the slots.”

[RWC] If AARP believes investing in business is akin to playing slot machines, why does AARP offer its own investment products in conjunction with Scudder Investments? Could the AARP consider personal accounts in Socialist Security to be competition for its own business?

“A recent survey revealed that 59 percent of senior citizens think Social Security should remain as it is. I’m proud that the survey showed that the ‘greedy geezers’ who won’t be affected by any program changes support the present system because it has enabled them to enjoy their senior years and they want it there for the coming generations.”

[RWC] As usual, Mr. Piroli failed to cite the source of his alleged survey. Let’s take a giant leap of faith and accept Mr. Piroli’s allegation.

Did the other 41% of seniors not count? When 4 out of 6 seniors support change, doesn’t that say something? Why didn’t Mr. Piroli document the results for the group Socialist Security reform would affect, younger workers?

The second sentence in this paragraph is ridiculous for two reasons. This is like a person who will never fly again opposing better airplane security screening because he wants future travelers to enjoy the same ease of travel as he enjoyed. Second, the present system will be unable to provide the same benefits to “coming generations” without reform, as then-President Clinton stated in 1998.

“I would like AARP and its opponents to explain the pros and cons of this reform program, the cost to the participants and the nation, so the public can be informed and not affected by attacks that don’t address the issue.”

[RWC] “Participants and the nation?” With few exceptions, aren’t they one and the same?

“Attacks that don’t address the issue?” Does that mean Mr. Piroli wants readers to ignore what they read in his column on this topic?

“As usual, I expect to be the target of those who disagree. I don’t mind disagreement, but please, in addition to personal attacks, address the issue of Social Security reform.”

[RWC] It isn’t a Gino Piroli column without the ritual “I’m a victim of personal attacks” allegation. Of the 12 Piroli columns I’ve critiqued since late April 2004, five alleged personal attacks.

Note Mr. Piroli chides us to “address the issue of Social Security reform,” yet not once in his column did Mr. Piroli follow his own advice.

“What is an even more critical issue is the matter of Medicare, which is more costly than any program we now have and is expected to reach staggering financial shortfalls. It is essential to those who are the baby boomers because it can create serious fiscal problems if not resolved.”

[RWC] Using a current Democrat tactic – just as his Times handlers – Mr. Piroli wants us to believe Medicare is a problem but Socialist Security is not. If President Bush had decided to focus on Medicare instead, does anyone doubt Mr. Piroli would be claiming Socialist Security was the real problem? Both programs are failures. Medicare also has the distinction – along with Medicaid and “employer subsidized” health insurance – of contributing to the high price of healthcare.

I’m a “baby boomer” and I’d like to see Medicare fixed, but probably not in the way Mr. Piroli would prefer. The only way to “fix” Medicare is to get rid of it, just like Socialist Security. Both programs need to be gradually phased out in a way that would not unfairly penalize workers already retired or closing in on retirement. Benefits would be based on how long the government took your taxes. Though it would take several decades, eventually this approach would result in the death of Medicare.

1. Meet the Press Transcript; NBC News; January 30, 2005.