Alan Simpson, Deficit Commission Court Jester
I really don't have an explanation for why Alan Simpson is one of the co-chairs of President Obama's deficit commission, beyond this: Every time the man opens his mouth, he makes the right wing look stupider than they did the day before. And more evil.
If I were running the world, Alan Simpson would not be anywhere near a commission of any kind, particularly one that is looking at Social Security in relation to the federal budget deficit. But he does provide an entertaining look at how utterly bankrupt right-wing policies are. If the idea was to have a court jester near the White House, Alan Simpson just might fill the role nicely.
Consider his two most recent gaffes. After referring to the Social Security system as a "milk cow with 310 million tits", he moved on to disabled veterans. Disabled veterans? Yes, really. He did.
Former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson's comments came a day after The Associated Press reported that diabetes has become the most frequently compensated ailment among Vietnam veterans, even though decades of research has failed to find more than a possible link between the defoliant Agent Orange and diabetes.
"The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess," said Simpson, an Army veteran who was once chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.
So if I follow his line of thinking, what he is saying is that the veterans who fought in our wars and were poisoned by Agent Orange through no fault of their own are to blame for the deficit.
It's a joke. It has to be.
But wait -- there's more. Back in June, OWL board members Merton and Joan Bernstein wrote a rebuttal to Simpson's lies about Social Security and posted them on the Huffington Post. Simpson sent them a letter (PDF) in response, in which he managed to be incredibly offensive, condescending and rude in two paragraphs.
I was quite amused by your latest (May 28, 2010) remarkable spew of drivel about Social Security.
[...]
Tack it on your wall and throw darts at it if you wish, but at least know that "out there" are some live human beings who are trying to stabilize this remarkable system and who are using facts instead of emotion, fear and guilt. Surely you people can do better than that? If you can't, then America is in a heap of trouble anyway.
Just the tone was amazing enough, without mentioning the content. But Simpson didn't stop there. No, no, he seems to have a need to be right. Also, OWL is an extremely vocal group pushing back on his unwarranted and unnecessary attack on Social Security. I guess Simpson is just frustrated that the call for his resignation has gotten louder, not softer, because he felt the need to follow up his letter with a personal telephone call to the Bernsteins on Tuesday night, where Merton Bernstein set the record straight on Simpson's errors with regard to Social Security.
Merton Bernstein told HuffPost that he picked up the phone Tuesday night and the caller told him: "You don't know who I am."
"Oh, yes I do," Bernstein said he told Simpson. Bernstein, who was a senior consultant to the 1983 commission that reformed Social Security, said he used the opportunity to try to educate Simpson.
The commission, chaired by Alan Greenspan, reformed Social Security so that it could handle the onslaught of the pending baby boom retirements. Simpson was unaware of what the commission had done, said Bernstein.
"That's not true," Bernstein said of Simpson's claim -- which he has made in the past and repeated to Bernstein -- that the commission did not account for baby boomers. "They very clearly and explicitly addressed that issue. That's why they built in a surplus." Bernstein told him that he was in the room with Bob Ball and other commission leaders when they made the decision to account for the pending wave of retirements.
"Then why are they in such trouble now?" Simpson responded. Bernstein responded that they are not in fact in trouble today. The surplus is now over $2 trillion and is projected to reach $4.6 trillion.
"Well, don't you pay attention to the trustee's report?" Simpson responded, as Bernstein recalled. Bernstein told him that he does pay attention to such reports, and that the most recent report found that Social Security was in no worse shape this year than it was last year, despite the recession. The program is on track to pay full benefits at least until 2037, at which point most surviving boomers will be in their late 80s and 90s.
If the strategy is to play Simpson as the fool publicly, it seems to be working. It also seems foolish, especially when his presence on this commission leaves an impression that there is a possibility Democrats could be the ones to attack Social Security in the name of deficit reduction.
Whatever the grand scheme is, there's no question that Simpson is no asset to this administration and should be shown the door as soon as possible.
The good thing about Alan Simpson is he is old, and hopefully won't have to concern himself with these issues too much longer.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
A 'jester' is supposed to be funny but the purist middle ages definition was' to distract'! --This man is far from funny!
Saying it was a cow with 310 million tits. Never mind that these people on Social Security NEED it to live in their own homes, not on welfare, and are far from the millionaire that Simpson is. He should never have been appointed to this commission. What is wrong with Obama? Republicans and Blue Dogs will never respect his desire for bipartisanship and coming up with real solutions.
310 million tits...and I STILL don't have access to one. Geeeez...gawwd.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Only one, or one pair?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYVhiqrfggo
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I'd settle for ONE. ; o )
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Alan Simpson is the PERFECT republican on the commission.
He truly represents the GOP point of view.
What part of that don't you get?
Alan is making a fool of himself and the GOP in the process. Simpson is expressing the true values of the GOP.
I say give this crazy-person a microphone and record his words.
This is helping our cause not hurting it.
Maybe people were thinking he was a democrat? If he was a dem he should be drawn and quartered but as a GOP he is nothing less than perfection.
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Simpson needs to be stripped of all his assets.
Then given a falling down house with a front porch and a rocking chair.
And forced to live on the Social Security a person who had worked only minimum wage jobs would get.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Or be dressed up like a page and turned loose in the republican chambers...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
any more explanation than the one you offered. I've said it before, this commission is nothing more than a device to get both the Democrats and the Republicans on the record with regard to their views on SS. The ridiculous idea that whatever the commission reports must be swallowed whole,is to be charitable, fear mongering.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
"The ridiculous idea that whatever the commission reports must be swallowed whole,is to be charitable, fear mongering."
I think you're right. Some people assume the commission will dictate what happens. Commissions have the same needs as dentures wearers - as they have no teeth.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
i am not going to disagree with that, except to say that, although fairly toothless, the commission helps frame the on-going debate, and will shape the media and establishment talking point about the deficit--which, in turn, will impact public opinion.
and with the likes of simpson and bowles leading this commission i don't think one needs to put on their tin foil to envision a prescription from the commission that looks to reduce the deficit on the backs of the middle class and working poor while ignoring military spending, the SS cap, etc.
this commission might simply, as peter g put it, put the partisan views on record as to their views on SS--the danger is that their recommendations will most likely be taken as gospel and (as we saw in the run up to the iraq war) this can spell trouble.
"this commission is nothing more than a device to get both the Democrats and the Republicans on the record with regard to their views on SS"
the other possibility is that the obama admin will use their findings as a shield from criticism they will receive if they implement any changes in entitlement programs. and, again, looking at who was chosen by the admin, i don't think it is crazy assumption to think that this commission will recommend cutting benefits and increasing the retirement age, and other not-so-popular options, and whistle past bloated DoD budgets and other areas ripe for belt tightening.
Of course, the real irony is that the uber-wealthy who profited immensely from this fiscal mess aren't being asked to do a damn thing to help "solve" it.
But yeah. Blame the vets. Btw, did Simpson ever serve?
What's really terrifying is that as co-chair, Simpson has 50% of the power on the commission.
Simpson's antics are a diversion to allow Erskine to do the dirty work unnoticed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_difjHNTRk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS75NtlH3gI
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
OK start yelling this from the rooftops, "Social Security is funded for at least 25 more years!" The thing about Simpson and the rest of the idiots who claim that Social Security is bankrupt is that they are not being truthful or can't think. The problem with Social Security is that the government BORROWED the money from Social Security to pay for Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich and now have to pay it back but they don't want to acknowledge it. They would rather say that SS is bankrupt.
The problem with Social Security is it works. It is the backbone of what became the social safety net for ALL Americans. It is the single most successful social program in the history of the world. It was THE legislation that banished the GOP to the political wilderness for over 40 years.
That is why the GOP hates it now, hated it then, and will always hate it until they finally can destroy it.
They cannot do it alone, nor will they attempt to. The destruction of Social Security will be bi-partisan, and it will be weak kneed modern day Democrats who care not a wit about people, but only about their pathetic self interest and their own pathetic little lives who will carry the water for the GOP.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Bush/Cheney, c/o the RNC
Rachel Maddow had a terrific segment on this last night. As she pointed out, Social Security is NOT a government program. It is a program FUNDED by workers. The money is taken out of our paychecks every week, two weeks or month (depending on when you are paid). It is funded by the people who will receive the money when they retire. It is OUR money. The government borrowed it. If the government is having a hard time paying it back then just say it. Don't make it sound like Social Security is underfunded.
Well, the Navy is just a boy band whose salary and equipment comes out of our tip jar every week. With marsupial mascots.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
he is, deliberately placed Simpson on the commission to make clear to the American public exactly what kind of uninformed, lying assholes he has to deal with on a daily basis. It's working like a charm.
He selected Simpson because: 1) he has always been out to destroy the New Deal (just as Obama is); 2) has maintained connections to the Pete Petersons of the world since leaving office; 3) has that "killer instinct" for getting things done; 4) is as stubborn as a mule and thusly will not compromise (which is good if you're looking to get a specific result out of the commission).
His folksie disdain for "lesser people" is just icing on the proverbial cake. That's just dog whistle politics for the CEO-Class that is Obama's true constituency. I bet they absolutely love Simpson's mutterings!
The bottom line here is that both co-chairs are out to destroy the New Deal and that is why they were chosen by this administration. This administration has proven itself to be as devotedly neo-liberal as his predecessors. They're also quite confident they can get away with it.
But you're absolutely right about the "uninformed, lying assholes" part, hands down. Trouble is, Obama also happens to belong to that club.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
He's just like Jesus, who always hung out with Sanhedrin sages and the Roman military because he was, like, playing multi-level chess, when he wasn't playing golf with the money changers.
Why do we have a deficit?
We spend more than we take in.
Do we want to solve this problem?
Yes (assumption).
Do we want to take in more, spend less, or some of both?
If we want to take in more, can we do so by taking in an amount of money that is below levels we have taken in during previous times when we had something we wanted to spend money on? Is taking that money and spending it to lower the deficit worth it?
If we want to spend less, are their items we can do without that other countries seem to be getting along without? Will not spending that money cause us harm nationally or hurt individuals?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Stop the war(s) and cut the military budget in half and restore the Bush tax cuts and get the economy back in shape and things will be good.
options.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Thank you for that financial advice, Mr. Suze Orman. :)
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
on TV, the government borrowed half our retirement money to spend on other stuff.
Then they decided we had so much retirement money we should get to shoot craps with it. But when the casino lost the other half of your retirement money we decided that was a bad idea.
Now they want to tell us that the government is a casino too and has lost our money and will have to pay us back less than it owes.
So we can continue to spend money on other stuff. Do we like this stuff?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I love stuff, couldn't live without my stuff. I even share my stuff with others when I get more stuff.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
This could work out in the end. Simpson spewing his horsecrap is a clear indication of how the Republicans think. I can't imagine that Joe Sixpack and Nancy Winebox are going to let these jokers take away their main source for retirement. The Democrats and the professional left need to get this message out. The message that the Republicans are trying to steal your Social Security money. Your savings account. Because that is EXACTLY what they are doing. This is no different than a Republican going into your bank account and borrowing it and then saying they don't have the money to pay it back. Social Security is your savings account. The government made it mandatory that you pay it into a fund (Social Security) because the government correctly figured out the most people will not pay into a savings account for retirement on their own. People need to know that Simpson and his ilk are trying to steal their money. That is the job for the Professional Left and for anybody who wants their Social Security money back.
Obomber wants people like him, because Obomber is one of them.
Any deficit commission should start with a take down of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Ha!
That will be the day… the day Obomber is out of a job.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
bipartisan ( assume that it does for the moment, just like we assume deficits need reduction):
Which Republican would you name as co-chair if you wanted to persuade Congressional Republicans that part of the solution was raising taxes as well as cutting spending?
I am not nominating anyone. I am merely suggesting that if those are your selection criteria, maybe a crazy old coot like Alan Simpson is all you can dredge up. They got any bulbs less dim in that drawer?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
"if you wanted to persuade Congressional Republicans"
you assume that thay are able to be persuaded to do anything that might help obama politically
which I stated at the outset.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Up until you mentioned it I had never considered the possibility that one, if not the main reason the commission exists is to give the Republicans cover for the relatively minor tax increase it would require to make SS solvent over the long term. I must say, on reflection, this idea has some appeal . I don't think it is inconsistent with my own view which is that the commission's primary purpose is to get party positions in black and white. If the Republicans don't want to play ball and do the right thing then they are going to have to explain why not. I don't think ideological fulminations are going to cut it with the electorate. At least the ones counting on SS and that's a lot.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Wake up out there. Simpson is a symptom of Obama's weak, sell-out, appeasing "leadership". Sure Simpson's a complete, hypocritical asshole. That was no secret BEFORE Obama picked him to co-chair this fucking cat food commission, a commission stacked with conservatives who will provide the great betrayer with the cover he thinks needs to start cutting into the very symbol of successful liberal government programs.
It is Obama who created this awful commission. It is Obama who appointed these fucking conservative bastards (Republicans and Democrats) like Simpson to populate it. It is Obama who is going to try and implement their recommendations.
It is Obama who will deliver to the conservative reactionaries that which they previously thought unobtainable, a structural weakening of the greatest New Deal and liberal political and governing achievement in the nations history.
when Social Security was passed (and Democrats had over 70% of the Senate 75% of the House plus 6 years of Depression) I would bet you would have denounced Social Security in terms that make progressive attacks on today's Health Care Reform bill seem like praise.
Wake up out there? The Commission was created to look at the entire deficit, not just Social Security. Social Security, by the way, is beginning to run a deficit. ( And I am aware it has a surplus
based on governement secured assets. )
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
If I'd been around in 1935 I wouldn't have had to complain about a weak, innefectual Democratic president. Instead I would have enjoyed watching liberal policies enacted by a strong effective Democratic president.
I guess the financial meltdown of the past 3 years isn't good enough for you to justify a Democratic president who actually leads instead of pointlessly appeasing a discredited minority GOP.
You go right ahead and keep apologizing and rationalizing for Obama. The conservatives and reactionaries are counting on guys like you.
...a majority of the truly effective liberal policies struck down by the Supreme Court. It's interesting to me that you think FDR was regarded as a strong effective Democratic president. He wasn't. Like Obama, he disappointed progressives by failing to nationalize banks. And like Obama, he made compromises that generated cries of "corporatist". And, like Obama, he wasn't entirely committed to the idea of ending all wars. Nay, he actually went behind Congress' back in order to inject US naval equipment into what would become World War II, long before any official US presence in the war.
Pleease...Obama is no FDR.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
...some of the rants posted on here fall very close on the spectrum to those teabaggers embrace.
excluded most black men and virtually all women of any color from coverage.
And regular benefits did not begin for five more years. That is what the original Social Security Program did in 1935.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Those are interesting comments that tell a great deal about ricky and karoli.
Yes, I must be a racist or teabagger if I criticize Obama.
I certainy would have applauded the enactment os the Social Security Act. I'm sure you would have preferred a much weaker program to apease the discredited minority GOP of 1935 like your hero Obama does with todays discredited minority GOP.
And FDR was not considered a strong Democratic president? Really?
Get real.
land on teabagger wise? It might be a good idea to import some teabaggers to bring the commentary back down closer to earth.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Simpson takes the far right, loony-tune position not only making Obama look "moderate" in any lesser attack on Social Security, but also ling up scores of "liberals" who will rabidly defend any Obama Social Security cuts with the tiresome excuse that "The Republicans are worse."
Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned; Obama and the Republicans play America like a fiddle.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Inflation is at 1.2% and 30 year T-Bills are paying 3.5%. Why is "The Deficit" a problem?
It simply isn't - mathematically.
So why the commission? Just the latest way to put Social Security cuts back on the table for Obama and the conservatives.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
on how big a deficit you have. You can run an annual deficit in perpetuity as long as it isn't so large you can finance it in such a way that the treasury bonds or other securities are payable when they mature. As long as an economy keeps growing you can borrow now and let the revenues from that bigger economy pay off the bonds twenty years down the road. The problem, of course, is that such continuous growth is not possible. If you run deficits that become too large and the accumulated debt becomes too massive then an increasingly large amount of tax revenue is devoted to servicing debt and cannot be used to finance any sort of social programs (the really expensive government programs). Then there is the completely different problem that occurs when the purchasers of debt start to doubt the ability to repay that debt and interest rates shoot up . This is the bogeyman that is most commonly used to try and scare people. Well guess what? He's real. Right now that bogeyman is waiting some ways off but he is there nevertheless although the US economy still has some room to maneuver as far as stimulus goes. The current strength of US government securities is predicated not on the fundamental strength of the US economy but on the fact that others are in worse shape and these securities are still a relatively safe alternative. What happens if and when this is not so?
There are other issues, of course. There is just so much capital available to borrow and governments compete for that available capital. When they borrow a lot it puts upward pressure on interest rates for other users of capital. The only way for governments to avoid this upward pressure, very inconvenient when you're trying to fight a recession, is to print it. That carries the risk of inflation. I'm glad I'm not Chairman of the Fed.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
is a hell of a slogan. One that the majority of Americans will grasp once it is explained to them on the nightly news.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I think most of these politicians forget that many women-myself included-were stay at home moms until our children left home. I'm 65 and that's what many women did then. I didn't get a full time job until I was 50 and that was because of my divorce that my husband wanted. After that I worked until I was 61 when my company went backrupt. Since I was 61 it was impossible to get a job in my area. At 62 I went on social security. Since I had only worked for 11 years you can imagine how much that was. Luckily my youngest son asked me to move in with him since he wasn't home much and he could take care of me if I got sick. I had no health insurance until this last May when I turned 65 when I got medicare. Now these repugs want to take away my social security so I have no money at all. There are millions of us stay at home moms who thought it was important to raise our children first. Things are so different now that most women work and put their children into daycare until school starts. I think they are the smart ones so they won't be in my situation when they get older. I noticed that all these repugs are rich and don't have to worry about anything when they get older. There motto seems to be that they got theirs and to hell with anyone else. Sorry to ramble but I'm afraid of what this country will be like if the repugs take over Congress.
Perhaps he wanted someone who exactly fits the demographic of the vast majority of people eligible
for Social Security when it first passed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Then again, perhaps Simpson's appointment represents another of the president's "sophisticated" political ploys that simply eludes your pedestrian grasp of his multi-dimensional strategizing, Karoli.
I am going to suggest the "multi dimensional" attack on Obama supporters (best exemplified in the phrase "11th dimensional chess") is in fact the creation of progressive critics. It is a charge as mythical as "welfare Cadillacs" used by conservatives, and just as disengenuos. But then we all know no progressives can be disengenuous, can they?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I have, on occasion, suggested that there is a more complicated and nuanced strategy to some of the things the White House does. Alan Simpson was not one of them, but he seems to be delivering a menu of amazing fumbles which would not lend themselves to any serious effort to do damage to Social Security.
Scrabble?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
The Social Security cuts are a done deal. Obama's "deficit commission" is merely a ploy to divert blame.
Yes, bipartisanship is alive and well in Washington, D.C. That is, if you want war, intrusive domestic surveillance, tax cuts for the rich, bailouts of corporate conglomerates, or cuts to social programs. Politicians are always willing to cross the aisle in order to achieve those ends.
My "sophisticated" crack was inspired by the most recent post on todays C&L's, in which the the author made the case that Obama's Iraq speech fitted that bill.
to equate sophistication with multi dimensional.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Alan Simpson is a prick. He has always been a prick. Remember back when he was kissing Reagan's ass on a daily basis? He's from Wyoming. Cheney is from Wyoming. Is it in the water up there? Turns them all into assholes?
people could pee in Old Faithful undetected. Some did not time it so well.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
...the right wing look stupider than they did the day before.
Yeah, but the right wingers didn't appoint him. He's where he is thanks to the guy who was going to fundamentally change the way we govern. Of course Obama isn't as bad as George Bush. Anyone who says he's worse is either insane or a right winger (aka INSANE). But Bush was a nasty little nothing of whom nothing was expected. And man did he deliver. He wrecked the economy and trashed the world. Almost anything would have been better than that.
We weren't looking for merely better than Bush, we wanted to take Obama at his word -- he was going to change things. Instead we've gotten someone who has disappointed repeatedly. At no point has Obama fought for fundamental change (unless that can be said of his despicable performance on human rights and there all he's doing is carrying on the Bush legacy).
We all know the Republicans want to end Social Security. So what we expect from a Democratic president is an approach to not only save it, but also strengthen it and reinvest in it for the long run. What do we get? Alan Simpson. Cat food anyone?
Comments are closed on this entry