BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
alan simpson is a worn out, played out, loud mouthed bourgeois pig. He is the obnoxious mouthpiece for the overtly greedy rich and corporations who are fighting to protect the life of entitlement they have grown used to over the past few decades and who feel they have absolutely no obligations or responsibilities to society and the nation as a whole. To maintain their wealth, and to increase it, they expect the government to keep in place their entitlement programs, no taxes on capital gains, tax subsidies for outsourcing, tax breaks for profitable investments. They expect the government's corporate welfare programs to be maintained and even expanded at the expense of the rest of us. They were expecting an expanded plutocracy with the election of mitt romney. Now they are resorting the manipulating the gop / tea-bagger controlled House to blackmail the country with sequestration. There is no way we can allow President Obama and congressional Democrats to give in. Chained-CPI for Social Security must be rejected, remove the cap on Social Security taxes to maintain the program. DO NOT raise the retirement age. Medicaid and Medicare can not be cut, adequate funding for these programs must be maintained, and the eligibility age must not be raised. Institute means testing and adopt the Pentagon's drug procurement program to help control cost. Protect the social safety net and funding for government programs for the 99%. IGNORE alan simpson's big mouth. Let Pres Obama know you expect him to keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid off the budget negotiating table by becoming a citizen sponsor of the House's Grayson-Takano letter http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_ss_grayson/?rd=1&source=e3-dem-don&t=2&referring_akid=12071.177676.boYG6k#fullletter and demand your Rep sign it http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ From HuffPost, and my letter to my Rep, Gerry Connelly D VA at the end of this post....
Alan Simpson, along with Erskine Bowles, represents a well-funded cadre of spokespeople who are only willing to present a narrow band of corporate- and billionaire-friendly economic policies. There's just one approach in their world, one which Simpson and Bowles reiterated just this week: Medicare and Social Security benefit cuts for seniors and the disabled and the gutting of middle-class tax breaks, paired with further tax reductions for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
This cynical agenda is all that Simpson represents. If he brings anything else to the table, it isn't immediately visible. He lacks subject matter knowledge in any of the fields a person must understand to speak knowledgeably on budget issues. He's not an expert in finance, economics, health care, or social welfare.
Instead, Simpson has demonstrated an embarrassing lack of expertise in the topics he speaks about. That can be seen in his video confrontation with activist Alex Lawson, and it can be inferred from his refusal to publicly debate any of his opponents - or even to acknowledge the many budget solutions which are more popular and more practical than his own (but which are less corporate- and billionaire-friendly).
The corporate government-slashing lobby has been extraordinarily effective, however, in positioning itself as the source of 'unbiased' wisdom, and its salespeople like Simpson as kindly, unbiased, and benificient elders.
Yesterday we had the extraordinary experience of hearing Simpson's words quoted with oracular gravity at a White House press briefing, by a journalist who didn't even bother rephrasing them in the form of a question. Simpson said the President must cut Medicare and Social Security, warning that if "he can't cut the mustard in the solvency of Social Security under honest appraisals of the trustees and he can't get a handle on automatic pilot rate of health care spending, he will have a failed presidency."
On Medicare, Simpson appears once again to be pushing for a ceiling on the total amount the program can spend each year. In other words, he's not interested in solving our health care cost problems (which would inconvenience wealthy corporate healthcare interests). He just wants to see those costs shifted back onto hapless seniors.
And any "honest appraisals of (Social Security's) trustees" would also include more immediate solutions to the program's long-term funding issues, like raising the payroll tax cap. But that, too, would inconvenience Simpson's wealthy backers.
It's a sign of journalistic laziness that the question was even asked - or rather, since there was no actual question, that a reporter used a Presidential press conference as a platform for repeating Simpson's corporatist rhetoric. In our degraded discourse, that sort of thing is to be expected.
But why did Carney spend so much time defending the President against Simpson's attack by journalistic proxy? Why did Carney boast of the fact that the President has signed into law twice as many spending cuts as tax increases - at a time when the wealthy and corporations still pay historically low actual rates of taxation - instead of bemoaning that fact?
And why is the President of the United States on the defensive toward a minor Washington politician, long since retired, who is now a paid spokesperson for billionaires and corporations? .
Whatever the White House's motivations, it apparently can't be trusted to hold the line on these programs. Good thing the House Progressive Caucus feels differently. It released a letter today signed by 107 House Democrats, which included these words:
"A commitment to keeping the middle-class strong and reducing poverty requires a commitment to keeping Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid strong. We urge you to reject any proposals to cut benefits, and we look forward to working with you to enact approaches that instead rely on economic growth and more fair revenue-raising policies to solve our fiscal problems."
The letter explicitly urged the President to avoid the chained-CPI cut, which the letters' signers said they "deeply opposed."
What the signers did not do is explicitly pledge to vote against any agreement which includes the chained-CPI cut. They should. If 107 Democrats refuse to back a Grand Bargain, there's very little likelihood it will pass.
If the President is going to keep feeling defensive about - of all people - Alan Simpson, it's going to take some backbone to stop the chained-CPI cut. A "no" pledge from a large group of Democratic House members might be just the kind of backbone the country needs right now.
If you haven't done so already I am asking you to sign the Grayson-Takano letter to Pres Obama pledging to "vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need." You need to stand firm against the gop / tea-bagger propaganda campaign being mouthed by alan simpson. They are blackmailing the nation with the threat of sequestration. You can not give in to blackmail, you can not pay ransom to the rich and corporate America with funds meant for the rest of us. Chained-CPI for Social Security must be rejected, remove the cap on Social Security taxes to maintain the program. DO NOT raise the retirement age. Medicaid and Medicare can not be cut, adequate funding for these programs must be maintained, and the eligibility age must not be raised. Institute means testing and adopt the Pentagon's drug procurement program to help control cost. Protect the social safety net and funding for government programs for the 99%.
GOT this today from a good family friend who is an old school Republican, conservative, and quite concerned about Social Security. Notice the reference to Pres Obama, proof positive this is just another piece or right wing repiglican/tea-bagger propaganda feeding the fear of and racist hatred for that black boogyman President we're "sufferin" under. I sent him my post on this blog from 1OKT11 and also pointed out, because of this statement that was added to beginning of the e mail during it's journey through cyberspace "This senior should be an inspiration to us all to write somewhat similiar letters to liberal legislators serving "our" districts." that Alan Simpson was a ultra conservative Republican Senator from Wyoming, nothing liberal about him at all. So here is the e mail and my response....
THIS SENIOR CITIZEN NAILED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama's deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
August, 2010.
Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is! Listen up. Direct from Ms Myers:
"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight..
1. As a career politician, You have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..
4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that yOu just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU.
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4.. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it. And you cAn take that to the bank, you miserable old son of bitch!!"
If you like the way things are in America delete this. If you agree with what a fellow Montana citizen Patty Myers says, PASS IT ON!!!!
MORE typical gop / tea-bagger hypocrisy on Social Security (and health care). Goes right along with their idolatrous worship of ayn rand, another hypocritic
al darling of the right wing who railed against Social Security and Medicare and the accepted them when she needed the help because her 'friends' turned their backs on her in her time of need....just like what the repiglican tea-baggers are going to do (and is already starting to happen) to all those right wing lemmings who are working class and middle class but who choose to believe the lies and propaganda of paul ryan and rick perry and michele bachmann and ron paul and rand paul and that whole lot. Keep supporting these people with your votes America and you know what your going to get for Christmas 2012. BOHICA and a jar of vaseline..
Watch the video from Brave new foundation and then share with others.....
By KATE ZERNIKE
The writings of Friedrich Hayek, the 20th century free-market enthusiast and Nobel laureate, have long been a favorite of libertarians, who have used them to argue that government programs like Social Security and Medicare put the nation and its people on what Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom.”
With the advent of the anti-stimulus, anti-big government Tea Party movement, he has enjoyed fresh affection — protesters quote him on their signs at rallies, and Ron Paul reports that people no longer go blank when he mentions Hayek’s name. (For those needing a primer on the differences between Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, who is enjoying fresh antipathy among the ranks of Tea Party supporters, there is a useful rap video.)
But critics like to point out that Tea Party supporters and libertarians are perfectly happy enjoying big government when it works for them. And now it appears that Hayek himself was encouraged to enjoy the benefits of government retirement and health care programs — by one of the country’s most prominent libertarians, the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.
According to a series of letters brought to light by The Nation , Mr. Koch wrote to Hayek in 1973 asking him to be a scholar in residence at the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian group founded by Mr. Koch. Hayek declined, saying that he recently had had surgery in Austria, which made him anxious about “the problems (and costs)” of falling ill far from home.
An associate of Mr. Koch’s wrote back to suggest that Hayek could take advantage of the generosity of Social Security if he came to this country (and noting that it would be prohibitive to secure him private health insurance here.) Mr. Koch followed up with another letter, enclosing a brochure on the benefits of Social Security, and noting that while in this country, Hayek (who had become eligible for government benefits because of his earlier employment at the University of Chicago) would also get free hospital care.
This was more than a decade after Hayek (who died in 1992) had written against Social Security in “The Constitution of Liberty,” calling such safety net programs the pathway to social and moral decay.
Mr. Koch went on to finance several institutions and organizations whose primary mission is to work against government spending and regulation. One, Americans for Prosperity, has given money to Tea Party groups, which surged in membership as they fought against legislation that would expand health care coverage to millions more Americans. (Americans for Prosperity sponsored a bus tour against the legislation.)
The Nation obtained the letters through the Hayek archives at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. “Nowhere,” the magazine notes, “do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It’s simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used.”
See Charles Koch Flip Flop on Social Security [VIDEO]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/see-charles-koch-flip-flo_b_988111.html
Charles and David Koch built an distortion machine to do their dirty work for them. Through think tanks, academic research, political donations and conservative media, the Koch brothers have steamrolled Americans into believing things that are false and into supporting policies that benefit the Koch brothers' profits.
Social Security has long been among the brothers' favorite punching bags, but new reporting by the Nation shows Charles Koch praising, advocating -- practically begging an ultra-free market economist and mentor to participate and enjoy Social Security benefits.
That Charles Koch would promote and grow Social Security is at odds with his efforts and donations to politicians and think tanks to destroy Social Security, as our Koch Brothers Exposed campaign has proven.
Among the Koch 'experts' featured in the video is Jose Pinera. Many experts exposed by our film were working to dismantle Social Security from inside the Bush administration before being Koch-funded, but Pinera was working under the Kochs for many years. The Nation reports Pinera was a key player in the Koch-funded plan to dismantle Social Security and adds that Pinera's knowledge about public health systems stemmed from his time implementing Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet's privatization plans, which had the effect of robbing poor and middle class families.
In one letter cited by the Nation, Charles Koch's colleagues at another think tank, the Institute for Humane Studies, detail a loophole whereby the Austrian-born and ultra-laissez faire economist Friedrich Hayek could opt into Social Security. Soon after that letter was shipped off, Koch wrote a personal appeal extolling the benefits of Social Security to Hayek. He brought up Medicare too. Koch said the program would cover Hayek's medical needs even further.
He sends Hayek a Social Security brochure along with the note: "You may be interested in the information that we uncovered on the insurance and other benefits that would be available to you in this country... you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World."
The Koch brothers have donated $28.4 million to think thanks that aim to destroy a social safety net for middle class Americans, and Hayek pioneered that ideology in many ways. Through the Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers have found a new audience for Hayek's philosophy.
Not only could an Austrian-born crusader against social safety nets draw entitlements from American taxpayers, but according to Koch, Hayek could do so while residing (and paying taxes) in the U.S. or any nation on Earth. This is a dramatic leap of faith from Koch orthodoxy, where government and public service are problems that hamper the Koch brothers' $100 billion business.
As the Nation rightfully points out, when Texas Governor Rick Perry says Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," that sentiment stems directly from the Kochs, who through their wealth have given Hayek a resurgence of popularity through the brothers' echo chamber and billion dollar distortion machine.
The Nation wonders why Charles Koch didn't offer some of his own money to treat Hayek's health issues. The reason is because the Koch brothers are selfish. Indeed the Koch brothers, and how they spend their wealth, is transforming selfishness into an American virtue.
HERE is a great piece from HuffPost with a very interesting bit of information
"More to the point, Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. "Since Social Security is legally prohibited from ever spending more than it has collected in taxes," Dean Baker correctly argues, "it cannot under the law contribute to the deficit."
The Social Security system "fell outside of the mandate" of the Deficit Commission, Baker said. "They must have been expecting extra credit." This is a bit of news that the deficit commission and the political parties, the Obama administration and the mainstream media seem to have deliberately left out of the story......but thanks to Rep Brad Miller (D NC) this very important tidbit has been pointed out.....WE NEED TO POINT THIS OUT TO PRES OBAMA BY E MAILING HIM AT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact AND TO OUR REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS, FIND THEIR E MAIL ADDRESSES AT http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
This from HuffPost followed by Dean Bakers piece in The New Republic...
The PowerPoint released by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform ("The Deficit Commission"), said we should "Reform Social Security for its own sake, not for deficit reduction."
No kidding. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Not now, not ever.
Critics of Social Security have frequently made alarming claims about the future of the system to support calls for "reform." President George W. Bush conceded in 2005 that "it's not bankrupt yet," but said we couldn't "wait until it's bankrupt." "The problem with that notion is that the longer you wait, the more difficult it is to fix," President Bush said. "You realize that this system of ours is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act... That's trillion with a 'T.'"
That does sound scary.
So what was the period for that projected shortfall? It was for the "indefinite future."
Forecasts of the end times are usually the work of religious prophets, not economists or actuaries. According to the Book of Revelation, at the end of days earthquakes will level mountains, hail will fall mixed with fire, and a beast with seven heads and ten horns will arise from the seas.
In that context, a shortfall in the Social Security system just doesn't seem like that big a deal.
At least President Bush used the term "projected shortfall," but Republican talking heads sent forth to battle on cable television routinely used the word "deficit," implying that we'd have to pick up the difference.
No, we wouldn't. Here's how it would work if we just left the current law alone.
The system has been running a substantial surplus for a generation because the Baby Boom has been working and paying payroll taxes, and the Baby Boom dwarfs the generation now receiving benefits. The surplus has gone into the Trust Fund, which now stands at about $2.6 trillion (That's trillion with a "T.") As the Baby Boom retires, the system will stop running a surplus later this decade. Then the system will pay full benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments, from payroll taxes and the interest from the Trust Fund. About a decade after that, payroll taxes and interest on the Trust Fund will not be enough to pay full benefits, including cost of living adjustments. Then the system will pay full benefits, including cost of living adjustments, from payroll taxes, interest and the principal of the Trust Fund.
Around 2037, the principal of the Trust Fund will be exhausted. Under the existing law, the system will then reduce the benefits to what can be covered by payroll taxes. The projection is that the benefits would then be reduced by about 22 percent.
A 22-percent reduction in benefits is pretty unattractive, especially if the finances of the middle class are as fragile in 30 years as they are now. But proposals to "fix" Social Security by reducing benefits would really just swap one reduction of benefits for another.
Paul Krugman argues that raising the retirement age is a reduction of benefits that works to the disadvantage of blue-collar workers:
[W]hile average life expectancy is indeed rising, it's doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers are living to a ripe old age.
Would blue-collar workers be better off if we raised the retirement age or let an across-the-board cut in benefits go into effect in 30 years or so? Isn't that a question we should ask?
More to the point, Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. "Since Social Security is legally prohibited from ever spending more than it has collected in taxes," Dean Baker correctly argues, "it cannot under the law contribute to the deficit."
The Social Security system "fell outside of the mandate" of the Deficit Commission, Baker said. "They must have been expecting extra credit."
We are right to worry about Social Security, and we are right to worry about our long-term deficit. But the two are completely distinct.
So proposing to "reform" Social Security because of long-term deficits is like invading Iraq because Afghanistan attacked us.
Or maybe the Social Security system has weapons of mass destruction.
Deep-Six the Deficit Commission Report
Dean Baker
November 11, 2010 | 12:00 am
For more coverage of the debt commission report, read Jonathan Chait and Jonathan Cohn.
Senator Alan Simpson, the chairman of the bipartisan deficit commission, spent much of his life scolding people for being dependent on Social Security and Medicare and complaining that they didn’t save enough. Now, based on the draft proposal released yesterday, it appears that he and his co-chairman Erskine Bowles never departed from this attitude in steering their thinking.
Given the state of the economy, the co-chairs’ report reads like a document from Mars. Just to remind those of us who earn their living on planet earth (outside of Wall Street), the country is suffering from 9.6 percent unemployment. More than 25 million people are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work altogether. Tens of millions of people are underwater in their mortgage and millions face the prospect of losing their home to foreclosure.
We did not get here because of government deficits, contrary to what Mr. Bowles seemed to suggest at the co-chairs’ press conference today. We got here because of the bursting of an $8 trillion housing bubble. This bubble was fueled by the reckless and possibly unlawful practices of the Wall Street banks, like Morgan Stanley, the bank on whose board Mr. Bowles sits.
This is important background—because the economy’s current problem has nothing, zero, nada to do with deficits. Its problem is a lack of demand. If there were more demand, more people would be employed. The government is the only force capable of creating demand right now, since the housing bubble wealth that had been fueling the economy has largely disappeared. This means that if our commission co-chairs had ever bothered to look at the current deficit in the context of the economic crisis, they would be complaining that the deficit is too small rather than too large.
Their ignorance of basic economics also leads them to hype unfounded fears about the longer-term picture. If they understood the fact that the current deficit is a support for the economy, rather than a drain on the economy, they would not be concerned about the buildup of debt taking place at the moment. There is no reason that the Fed can’t just buy this debt (as it is largely doing) and hold it indefinitely. (The Fed has other tools to ensure that this expansion of the monetary base does not lead to inflation.)
That way, the debt creates no interest burden for the country, since the Fed refunds the interest to the Treasury every year. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion in interest to the Treasury, nearly 40 percent of the country’s net interest burden. This means that the fears raised by Simpson and Bowles of an exploding debt reaching 90 percent of GDP by the end of the decade have no foundation in reality.
The other fear that Simpson and Bowles raised, the Chinese holdings of debt, should be condemned as xenophobic fear-mongering. Insofar as China’s holding of U.S. assets is a problem, it is holdings of assets period, not just government bonds. If China holds $2 trillion of private stock, bonds, and other assets it has the same impact on the United States as if it held $2 trillion in government bonds. It represents money in interest, dividends, and profits that is flowing out of the United States and to China, meaning that we will be less wealthy since much of our future output will be income to foreigners, not to people in the United States.
But the transfer of wealth to China depends entirely on our trade deficit, which is determined by the value of the dollar, not the budget deficit. Simpson and Bowles decided not to let this basic economic fact get in their way.
Over the longer term, the country is projected to face a deficit problem, but this is almost entirely attributable to the projection that private sector health care costs will continue to grow at an explosive rate. More than half of our health care is paid for by the government, so this projected growth rate of health care costs would eventually lead to serious budget problems in addition to leading to enormous problems for the private sector. However, the underlying problem is the broken health care system, not public sector health care programs. This subtlety also seems to have escaped Simpson and Bowles.
Finally, it is striking that they felt the need to address Social Security's solvency even though it was not part of their mandate. The commission’s mandate was to deal with the country’s fiscal problems. Since Social Security is legally prohibited from ever spending more than it has collected in taxes, it cannot under the law contribute to the deficit.
But Simpson and Bowles are scolds. So they produced a plan that will substantially reduce Social Security benefits for most middle class workers, even though this program fell outside of their mandate. They must have been expecting extra credit.
There are certainly some positive items in the report. For example, they want to limit the mortgage interest-rate deduction for expensive houses. They also want to get rid of the deduction for cafeteria benefit plans; one of the stupidest tax breaks ever designed. But, these items will likely go nowhere, which would be a good place to leave the rest of the report. Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. His most recent book is False Profits: Recovering from the Bubble Economy (Polipoint Press, 2010.) For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
SEN BERNIE SANDERS (I VT) will offer the progressive caucus in Congress the chance to develop an alternative plan to the deficit commissions report. Whatever they come up with will not become law, but it will provide a basis for a unified front against the gop, tea-bagger, wall street dominated deficit commission giving us the the chance to defeat the most drastic recommendations from simpson, bowles and company. Stay tuned.....
WASHINGTON -- Clearly displeased with the initial deficit-reduction recommendations offered by the fiscal commission chairmen, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced on Friday that he will craft and introduce his own proposals as an alternative.
The Vermont Independent said that he will work with members of Congress, labor unions, seniors' organizations and others to develop alternative suggestions. And while he didn't get into the weeds, he did offer a few general areas that he hopes to target, including ending Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, chopping off Cold War-era Pentagon programs and eliminating of tax credits for big oil companies.
Of the ideas pushed by the commission co-chairmen -- former Sen. Alan K. Simpson and Erskine Bowles, former President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff -- Sanders offered the following:
"It is no surprise that these two favor draconian cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the needs of our veterans, and education while proposing tax reductions for the wealthy and large profitable corporations... Simpson is a darling of the Republican right wing and Bowles is a former investment banker who made a fortune on Wall Street. Their plan was floated amid reports that the two were struggling to cobble together enough support on their own commission to go forward by a Dec. 1 deadline."
The likelihood that a progressive alternative for deficit reduction would get a vote in the Senate, let alone a hearing, is slimmer than the chances of Simpson and Bowles' recommendations making it to the floor unscathed. But Sander's effort isn't necessarily about getting a vote. Rather, there is, currently, one blueprint being offered for the task of deficit reduction and it's largely anathema to the progressive community. Having a second proposal out there serves the purpose of giving the negotiations a bit of bearing.
"We all know that there are a number of fair and progressive ways to address the deficit crisis that would not harm the middle class and those who have already lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college," Sanders writes, in a letter to those he's inviting for discussions. "The time has come to put these proposals into a package so that the progressive view becomes a part of the national discussion." Click the link for Sen Sander's letter.
Make no mistake: They're not just trying to roll back Social Security. They're trying to dismantle the entire New Deal, piece by piece. There are at least "310,000,000 Reasons to Vote," one for each and every American citizen. But there's also a 310,000,001th reason:
To piss off Alan Simpson.
That may not be the most high-minded motive for executing one's civic duty, but like they say: Whatever works.
Simpson is, as most people know by now, the co-chair of the Deficit Commission. He's the guy who's using the Deficit Commission platform to lead his own personal jihad against anyone with the temerity to claim (or expect to claim) the Social Security retirement benefits they've funded with their own paychecks. It's Simpson who famously compared Social Security to "a milk cow with 310 million tits." Most people didn't recognize the quote, but Simpson was probably attempting to channel H. L. Mencken's line about government itself, which Mencken called "a milch-cow with 125 million teats" (the population of the United States at the time).
That's right: Simpson was recycling a denigrating comment about the very institution of government. The swapping of "teat" (the commonly-used word for an animal's milk-giving gland) for the word that refers to a woman's breast was Simpson's own alteration, probably intended to disturb the female recipient of his comment. But Simpson real intent was to express his own deep-seated hostility to the very idea of government, a hostility shared by many of the politicians running for office this year. As for Mencken, he was rabidly anti-FDR, referring to him on more than one occasion as "the Fuehrer." Simpson was probably also telegraphing a similar loathing for the entire New Deal and the social programs that followed it.
Why rehash the Simpson flap about cow mammaries? Because it reminds us exactly what we're up against next Tuesday. Social Security is under attack by a well-funded and highly organized coalition made up of billionaires, ethically compromised news organizations, and patronizing members of a self-designated elite (with a few misogynistic misanthropes like Simpson thrown in for good measure). They're making terrific headway, too.
And this is just the beginning: If they succeed in rolling back Social Security, it will just be the first step. Once that's accomplished, every major social program in the country will be in their sights. That's why they've pulled out all the stops to accomplish this first goal. The Washington Post has turned part of its newsgathering function over to an outfit that's funded by an ideologically-driven anti-government billionaire. Well-paid pundits are luxuriating in the opportunity to give lectures on "sacrifice" to older working people struggling to get by, bathing in the glow of self-righteousness as if it were just another mud bath at their customary spa. Technocrats like economist Alice Rivlin are pretending that decisions about spending priorities are "technical problems" rather that political choices, as if the political process itself were some sort of virus that had infected their spreadsheet programs.
Spending priorities are never a "technical" issue, of course. They're statements about our priorities and values as a society. That means that, in a democratic society, they must always be decided politically. That's not a bad thing. It's called "democracy." And the decisions that Rivlin et al. would foist upon us are, by their very nature, political. They just like to pretend otherwise. 136 members of Congress have signed a pledge to "stand firmly" against any Social Security cuts, adding that "We urge you to join us in protecting and strengthening Social Security rather than letting it fall victim to a misguided attempt to reduce budget deficits on the backs of working families." Each and every representative of that pledge is up for re-election on Tuesday.
Now, as it happens, the pledge signers are all members of one political party. It shouldn't be that way in a representative democracy. Political one-sidedness on Social Security represents a breakdown of the democratic process, since three-fourths of all Americans oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit -- including 77% of Republicans and 76% of Tea Party supporters! There should be a bipartisan drive to protect Social Security, an across-the-aisle effort to counteract the Inside-the-Beltway fixation on cutting it. Maybe someday there will be, despite the efforts of the technocratic ideologues and the billionaire media-influencers.
That's why there are 310,000,000 reasons to vote. That's one for each and every American who has paid into the Social Security Trust Fund through their payroll taxes, and who deserves to receive the promised level of benefits when they retire. There are 310,000,000 reasons to vote, one for each and every American born into a society where everyone was assured a minimum level of protection from privation and want when they're unable to work because of age or disability. There are 310,000,000 reasons to vote, one for every American raised to believe that government has a legitimate role to play in assuring the well-being, safety, and security of its citizens.
Then there's the 310,000,001th reason: To frustrate, aggravate, and otherwise annoy Alan Simpson, an already disagreeable individual who's likely to become even more so if he's thwarted in his lifelong quest to shaft older Americans (or "greedy geezers," as he likes to call them). Sure, that's not the best reason to vote - but, hey, it's a reason.
And if Simpson doesn't like the election results, then as the old expression goes: "Tough titty."
______________________________________________________________
SIMPSON HAS GOT TO GO....how dare he make such an outrageous charge! My Uncle Bud was an Army lifer, served in Vietnam with the Green Berets, was exposed to massive amounts of Agent Orange, and died a terrible death from a rare form of leukemia that was caused by Agent Orange. He all he is doing is protecting corporate welfare and the military industrial complex on the backs of the retired, working and middle class, vets and the poor, typical republican platform and proposals. See my post on 25 AUG 10 on Simpson complaining Social Security is a milk cow with 310 million tits, and search this blog for more information on the fight to protect Social Security from Simpson and the deficit commission. PRESIDENT OBAMA, GET RID OF ALAN SIMPSON! I have also included the WH blog posting on the new Vets Admin policy on Agent Orange.
As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Deficit Commission co-chair Alan Simpson recently started a political firestorm by complaining that veterans benefits allocated for servicemembers exposed to Agent Orange run “contrary to efforts to control federal spending.” He even went as far as to say that “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.”
Now, veterans advocacy group VoteVets, the nation’s largest progressive veterans organization, is calling on President Obama to fire Alan Simpson. Citing not only his comments about veterans benefits but also his earlier remarks comparing Social Security to a “milk cow with 310 million tits,” VoteVets asks that Obama remove Simpson from “his current position so that the commission can continue its work in a way that will give the military community — and all Americans — confidence in the conclusions it reaches”:
The nation’s largest progressive veterans organization, VoteVets.org, is calling on President Obama to relieve former Senator Alan Simpson from his chairmanship of a deficit reduction commission for defamatory comments about veterans. [...]
His comments came on the heels of outrageous comments about seniors and others on Social Security, as well as women. The veterans pointed to those comments as well, but wrote that Simpson’s attacks on ill veterans compelled them to write. They said firing Simpson was a matter of honoring our veterans. [...] “We ask that you remove [Simpson] from his current position so that the commission can continue its work in a way that will give the military community–and all Americans–confidence in the conclusions it reaches,” the letter concludes.
Additionally, last night on Countdown With Keith Olbermann, Paul Sullivan, executive director of the veterans advocacy group Veterans for Common Sense appeared to call for Simpson to be fired as well, saying he was “absolutely not” the right person to be co-chairing the commission. When Olbermann asked Sullivan if the the ex-senator should be fired, Sullivan replied, “Let me put it to you politely. There’s lots of work for out of work politicians in Washington. I’ll leave it at that.” Watch it:
The White House Blog
Agent Orange and Veterans: A 40-Year Wait
Posted by Secretary Eric K. Shinseki on August 30, 2010 at 04:59 PM EDT
With the unwavering support of President Obama, VA is transforming to meet its 21st Century responsibilities. Advocacy, on behalf of every generation of Veterans, is central to this transformation.
Agent Orange was a blend of herbicides used by the U.S. military, during the Vietnam conflict, to deny concealment to enemy forces. More than 19 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed to remove foliage and undergrowth. The most common, Agent Orange, was sprayed in all four military zones of South Vietnam.
Heavily sprayed areas included the inland forests near the Demilitarized Zone; inland forests at the junction of the borders of Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam; inland forests north and northwest of Saigon; mangrove forests on the southernmost peninsula of Vietnam; and mangrove forests along major shipping channels southeast of Saigon.
The issue of Agent Orange’s toxic effects on Veterans, who served in Vietnam, has simmered for decades. Its insidious impact on those exposed to it has become increasingly apparent. That growing awareness has resulted in the Congress’, this Department’s, and the Institute of Medicine’s previous validations of some 12 diseases, which, to date, have been granted presumption of service connection for those exposed to Agent Orange.
Last October, based on the requirements of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and the Institute of Medicine’s report, “Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008,” I determined that the evidence provided was sufficient to support presumptions of service connection for three additional diseases: Parkinson’s Disease, Hairy Cell and other Chronic B-Cell Leukemia, and Ischemic Heart Disease. After a public rulemaking process, we are now issuing a final regulation creating these new presumptions.
This action means that Veterans who were exposed to herbicides in service and who suffer from one of the “presumed” illnesses do not have to prove an association between their medical problems and their military service. This action helps Veterans to overcome the evidentiary requirements that might otherwise make it difficult for them to establish such an association in order to qualify for healthcare and other benefits needed as a result of their diseases. The “Presumption” simplifies and accelerates the application process and ensures that Veterans will receive the benefits they deserve.
As many as 150,000 Veterans may submit Agent Orange claims in the next 12 to 18 months. Additionally, VA will review approximately 90,000 previously denied claims from Vietnam Veterans for service connection for these three new diseases. All those who are awarded service-connection, and who are not currently enrolled in the VA health care system, will become eligible for enrollment.
Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam, including its inland waterways, between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975, are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides. If you know a Veteran who may have been exposed to herbicides in service and who suffers from one of the diseases that may be presumptively service connected, the Veteran or the Veteran's family can visit our website to find out how to file a claim for presumptive conditions related to herbicide exposure, as well as what information is needed by VA to determine disability compensation or survivors’ benefits. Additionally, VA’s Office of Public Health can answer questions about Agent Orange and VA’s services for Veterans exposed to it.
This rule is long overdue. It delivers justice to those who have suffered from Agent Orange’s toxic effects for 40 years. I have been invited to testify before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on 23 September to explain these decisions, and I am happy to do that. It was the right decision, and the President and I are proud to finally provide this group of Veterans the care and benefits they have long deserved.
VA is committed to addressing the health care needs of Veterans from all eras. Forty years from today, a future Secretary of VA should not be adjudicating presumptive disabilities associated with our current conflicts. Change is difficult for any good organization, but we are transforming this Department to advocate for Veterans. We will not let our Veterans languish without hope for service-connected disabilities resulting from their service.
Alan Simpson's attitude toward those of us who pay into the system is disgusting, he has made objectionable comments before but his comment referring to Social Security being a milk cow with 310 million tits is the last straw and he needs to be removed from the deficit commission now. Call the WH, I did, and the operator told me they are getting lots of calls for Simpson's removal and said I should e mail the WH also...did that, hope you will to. Remember, democracy is not a spectator sport! Check out the story from HuffPost on this latest Simpson outrage and what the video of Simpson in action attacking a Social Security advocate.
It's time for Alan Simpson to resign.
When President Obama appointed former Sen. Simpson co-chair of the deficit commission, he said Sen. Simpson would lead the commission in building "a bipartisan consensus to put America on the path toward fiscal reform and responsibility."1
But instead, Sen. Simpson has made clear, again and again, that he has contempt for people who rely on Social Security, and will use his position to rant at anyone who doesn't agree with his plans to cut benefits.
First, he referred to people who rely on Social Security as "greedy geezers,"2 then he called Americans who need Social Security "lesser people."3 On Monday he sent an off-the-wall email to the Executive Director of a group representing older women about "people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree." He went on to say, "It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where [Social Security is] like a milk cow with 310 million tits."4
Simpson just apologized for the last comment, saying it was a case of him putting his foot in his mouth.5 But this isn't about a poor choice of words or a one-time gaffe. Simpson has repeatedly, over the course of years, shown contempt for those who rely on Social Security while berating those who disagree with him. As Paul Krugman wrote yesterday, "he has to go."6
Can you call the White House and tell them that Sen. Simpson needs to be removed from the deficit commission?
The White House—(202) 456-1111
http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=1443&tg=652&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=1
Alan Simpson is in charge of a commission that everyone expects will recommend cuts to Social Security to deal with the deficit—even though Social Security doesn't contribute one cent to the deficit.7 But someone with such extreme disdain for the people who rely on America's most successful social program has no place leading a commission that could well decide its fate.
To make matters worse, Simpson has repeatedly gotten his facts wrong on Social Security (check out Paul Krugman's fact-check of Simpson after his last outburst8).
Here's the full excerpt from his ranting email to the Executive Director of the Older Women's League:
If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know. And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!9
President Obama appointed Simpson. But with Simpson's continued abuse of those who disagree with him—and his lack of understanding for the program he is charged with reforming, it's clear that Obama must ask him to resign.
The White House—(202) 456-1111
http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=1443&tg=652&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=2
Thanks for all you do.
–Daniel, Anna, Nita, Duncan, and the rest of the team
P.S. If you haven't already, check out our Top 5 Myths about Social Security:
1. "President Obama Establishes Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform," The White House, February 18, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90094&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=4
2. "Intemperate, Ignorant, Uncivil, Unqualified: Why Alan Simpson Must Go," The Huffington Post, August 25, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90095&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=5
3. "Caught on Video," MoveOn.org Political Action, August 25, 2010
http://pol.moveon.org/deficitcommission/simpson.html?id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=6
4. "Alan Simpson: Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits'," The Huffington Post, August 25, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90096&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=7
5. Ibid.
6. "Fire Alan Simpson," The New York Times, August 25, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90102&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=8
7. "Social Security Works for America," Social Security Works
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89288&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=9
8. "Zombies Have Already Killed The Deficit Commission," The New York Times, June 21, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89114&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=10
9. "Alan Simpson: Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits'," The Huffington Post, August 25, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90096&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=11
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
Alan Simpson: Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits' [UPDATE]
UPDATE: Wednesday 8:30 p.m. - Simpson isn't going anywhere, the New York Times reports. "Alan Simpson has apologized and while we regret and do not condone his comments, we accept his apology and he will continue to serve," White House spokesperson Jennifer Psaki told the Times.
UPDATE: Wednesday 3:59 p.m. - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) called on President Obama to fire Alan Simpson from the deficit commission for referring to Social Security as "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" in an email this week to OWL executive director Ashley Carson.
The letter, provided to HuffPost, concludes:
The statement by Senator Simpson that Social Security is "like a milk cow with 310 million tits" is really quite beyond comprehension. Today, Social Security provides the majority of income for two-thirds of the nation's elderly and for one-third it provides nearly all their income. Without it, millions of Americans would be living in abject poverty as was the case before the creation of Social Security. It is false and demeaning to say that these people, the vast majority of whom have worked their entire lives and contributed into the Social Security system, are somehow "milking" the system.
Despite the many years of distinguished public service former Senator Simpson has dedicated to this country, his recent e-mail indicates that it is no longer appropriate for him to serve on the bi-partisan deficit reduction commission. Therefore, in order for your commission's recommendations to have credibility with Congress, we respectfully urge you to remove Senator Simpson from the commission.
* * * * *
UPDATE: Wednesday 3:08 p.m. - Alan Simpson apologized Wednesday for describing Social Security as "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" in an email to OWL executive director Ashley Carson.
Simpson's apology comes as pressure is mounting on the former Wyoming Senate Republican to resign his co-chairmanship of President Obama's deficit commission, which is considering cuts to Social Security.
The National Organization for Women called on him to step down Wednesday. "Alan Simpson is not fit to lead the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform," said NOW President Terry O'Neill in a statement to HuffPost. "The ugliness of his disrespect for women is matched only by his dogged determination to dismantle Social Security by cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age. The National Organization for Women urges President Obama to take a stand on this issue and replace Simpson immediately."
Story continues below
And in a public statement, AARP called Simpson's comment "offensive" and said that it "undermine[s] the serious work of the commission and give[s] us little confidence the commission can fairly look at important programs such as Social Security."
Simpson wrote Carson while on vacation:
My wife Ann and I are in Yellowstone National Park for the opening of the new visitor center, so I only just now have had the opportunity to read your response to my recent e-mail. I apologize for what I wrote. I can see that my remarks have caused you anguish, and that was not my intention. I certainly did not intend to diminish your hard work for the Older Women's League. I know you care deeply about strengthening Social Security, and so do I, just as deeply. I remember your testimony at our public hearing in June about the importance of retirement security for women. Over the last 40 years, I have had my size 15 feet in my mouth a time or two. To quote my old friend and colleague, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, when I make a mistake, "It's a doozy!"
Next time I'm in Washington, perhaps we could meet in person, and I could learn further of your sincere concerns.
Carson told HuffPost she was appreciative of the apology but that his comments demonstrate that he is unfit to lead the commission. A spokeswoman for NOW also said that their call for his resignation stands, despite the apology.
"I am very appreciative of Mr. Simpson's quick apology and for his acknowledgment of wrongdoing," said Carson. "That said, OWL's position that Mr. Simpson should resign from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has not changed. This is much more than a 'foot in your mouth' situation. Mr. Simpson has demonstrated a consistent, decades-long, pattern of making statements that are offensive to seniors, to women and that are just plain unacceptable in 2010. There are consequences for actions -- especially when those actions result in uniting people who fight for a common purpose. We, the advocates, do honest work day in and day out to help disadvantaged individuals create better lives for themselves and their loved ones. His actions demonstrate that he does not possess the judgment necessary to make objective recommendations about some of America's most valued programs."
* * * * *
UPDATE: Wednesday 10:27 a.m. - Alan Simpson should resign as co-chair of President Obama's deficit commission for sending an email to a leading women's rights advocate calling Social Security "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" a leading advocate of Social Security said Wednesday, arguing that Simpson's "disdain for the very program he claims he is trying to protect" makes him unfit for a leadership position on the panel, which is considering cuts to Social Security.
Social Security Works co-director Eric Kingson, in a statement released the day after the email became public, said that Simpson's "disdain for the very program he claims he is trying to protect" makes him unfit for a leadership position on the commission, which is considering cuts to Social Security.
Social Security Works is on steering committee of the 125 member Strengthen Social Security Coalition.
"Alan Simpson's comments are offensive and sexist and clearly demonstrate that he is unfit to continue to lead the President's Fiscal Commission," he said. "His comments not only show his true view of women and older Americans but also his disdain for the very program he claims he is trying to protect - Social Security. Social Security Works is demanding that he resign immediately."
The commission was established with an executive order from President Obama after Republicans who had championed such a commission voted against creating one on the Senate floor in an effort to deprive the president of a political victory. Obama has the authority to place and remove commissioners. If Simpson refuses to resign, said Kingson, Obama should can him.
"If he will not [resign], the President must fire him," he said. "Alan Simpson has no business deciding the fate of hundreds of millions of Americans' retirement future. He should have no power over Social Security, which provides vital economic support to millions of children and people with disabilities, as well as seniors and their families."
* * * * *
Tuesday 7:32 p.m. - Alan Simpson believes that Social Security is "like a milk cow with 310 million tits," according to an email he sent to the executive director of National Older Women's League Tuesday morning. Simpson co-chairs the deficit commission, which is considering various proposals to cut Social Security benefits.
Simpson's email, which OWL chief Ashley Carson released publicly, (PDF) was sent in response to an April blog post Carson wrote for the Huffington Post. Carson criticized Simpson for repeatedly describing his Social Security opponents as "Pink Panthers," arguing that the description had sexist connotations.
His email is peppered with exclamation points and condescension. At one point he urged Carson to read a certain graph, "which I hope you are able to discern if you are any good at reading graphs."
Simpson concludes by implying that leading a major organization dedicated to the interests of middle-aged and elderly women is not "honest work."
"If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know," he writes. "And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow
with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!"
It's unclear from Simpson's email if he means Social Security is the milk cow or if he's referring to America in general. A Simpson assistant responded to a HuffPost email saying that Simpson was traveling and unable to comment immediately. OWL is now circulating a petition calling on the former Republican Senator from Wyoming to resign.
Simpson's tirade continues a pattern of erratic behavior that threatens to undermine the commission's work. In June, he unleashed a stream of error-riddled invective on a Social Security advocate wielding a camera outside a closed-door commission meeting, leading Paul Krugman to conclude (happily) that Simpson was killing the commission.
