Alan Simpson, the co-chair who should never have been appointed to the deficit reduction commission that should never have been established, should resign now or be fired forthwith by the President who appointed him.
Simpson has written his own ticket:
By calling Social Security “a milk cow with 310 million tits.”
By insulting a distinguished woman, Executive Director Ashley Carson of OWL, the Older Women’s League, accusing her of “babbling into the vapors” and inviting her to “call when you get honest work.”
By calling Americans who rely on Social Security “greedy geezers” and “lesser people.”
If there is a “lesser person” in America, it is Alan Simpson.
Ashley Carson speaks for us when she says: “This kind of blatant disrespect for women, and for the social fabric of our country, has no place in a serious discussion about the deficit.”
And OWL speaks for us when it declares:
“Mr. Simpson’s fifteen minutes of sexism and degradation are over. Now is the time for serious people to have serious conversations about how to move our nation forward, protecting the men and women who have worked their whole lives to make this country great.”
Simpson should resign or be fired forthwith by the President. He should also be publicly repudiated by Commission Co-Chair Erskine Bowles and by the full commission.
Back to Home
Showing posts with label Alan Simpson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Simpson. Show all posts
Friday, September 3, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
On guard for Social Security!
By Will Parry
Back in February, in an editorial of 1,800 words entitled “The Truth About the Deficit,” The New York Times sounded this ominous note:
“And then there is Social Security. What is needed is a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases that preserve the program’s essential nature.”
The phrase “benefit cuts and tax increases” sums up in five words the objectives of an array of powerful political actors, including billionaire Peter Peterson, who has been pouring his wealth into campaigns to destroy Social Security for a quarter century.
The talk about “preserving the program’s essential nature” is sheer window-dressing. It is the last thing the enemies of Social Security are concerned with.
Today’s reality is that the millions subsisting on Social Security cannot afford benefit cuts. And any increase in the regressive Social Security payroll tax would shift the crushing weight of the deficit still more onto the workers from whose paychecks that tax is regularly deducted.
Charged with bearing responsibility for the budget deficit, Social Security, with $2.5 trillion in the trust funds, is funded farther into the future than any other government program. The Congressional Budget Office says Social Security, as it stands today, can make its scheduled payments in full through 2043.
Far from “preserving its essential nature,” benefit cuts and tax increases substantial enough to address the budget deficit would totally emasculate Social Security.
Any long-range shortfall in Social Security funding could be addressed by simply abolishing the arbitrary $106,800 cap above which income is not subject to the 8.2% payroll tax. The cap enables the wealthy to amass billions of dollars tax free, even as fry cooks and steelworkers are taxed for every cent of their wages.
Shamefully, stories in the mainstream media reinforce the falsehoods about Social Security funding – that it is in trouble, and that it is responsible for the deficit. And they rarely if ever mention the option of abolishing the arbitrary cap on taxable earnings.
President Obama’s preoccupation with reducing the federal deficit is deeply troubling. Congress defeated a proposal for a statutory commission, but Obama has set up an appointed bipartisan 18-member commission, charged with considering everything that might reduce the deficit, including spending cuts, new taxes, and changes in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Obama named former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles to co-chair the panel. Simpson is a real fox in the henhouse. He compiled a rotten Senate voting record, has propagated the “greedy geezer” lie about the nation’s elderly, and wants to cut Social Security benefits by changing the statistical formula used to calculate the annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Nor is Bowles a champion of Social Security’s integrity. Bloomberg News quotes him as saying that entitlement programs such as Social Security will turn the nation into a “second-rate power” if their costs aren’t reduced.
“We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there,” Bowles said in a speech to North Carolina bankers. “All of our revenues are completely consumed by entitlements.”
Both Simpson and Bowles have said they would consider recommending a value-added tax, one of the most egregiously regressive ways to raise revenue.
Forty national organizations have written every member of Congress expressing “strong opposition” to any deficit-reduction commission “that would override the normal legislative process.”
Look for a bruising political battle, rivaling that over health care reform, throughout 2010 and into next year. And the stakes are every bit as big.
Back in February, in an editorial of 1,800 words entitled “The Truth About the Deficit,” The New York Times sounded this ominous note:
“And then there is Social Security. What is needed is a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases that preserve the program’s essential nature.”
The phrase “benefit cuts and tax increases” sums up in five words the objectives of an array of powerful political actors, including billionaire Peter Peterson, who has been pouring his wealth into campaigns to destroy Social Security for a quarter century.
The talk about “preserving the program’s essential nature” is sheer window-dressing. It is the last thing the enemies of Social Security are concerned with.
Today’s reality is that the millions subsisting on Social Security cannot afford benefit cuts. And any increase in the regressive Social Security payroll tax would shift the crushing weight of the deficit still more onto the workers from whose paychecks that tax is regularly deducted.
Charged with bearing responsibility for the budget deficit, Social Security, with $2.5 trillion in the trust funds, is funded farther into the future than any other government program. The Congressional Budget Office says Social Security, as it stands today, can make its scheduled payments in full through 2043.
Far from “preserving its essential nature,” benefit cuts and tax increases substantial enough to address the budget deficit would totally emasculate Social Security.
Any long-range shortfall in Social Security funding could be addressed by simply abolishing the arbitrary $106,800 cap above which income is not subject to the 8.2% payroll tax. The cap enables the wealthy to amass billions of dollars tax free, even as fry cooks and steelworkers are taxed for every cent of their wages.
Shamefully, stories in the mainstream media reinforce the falsehoods about Social Security funding – that it is in trouble, and that it is responsible for the deficit. And they rarely if ever mention the option of abolishing the arbitrary cap on taxable earnings.
President Obama’s preoccupation with reducing the federal deficit is deeply troubling. Congress defeated a proposal for a statutory commission, but Obama has set up an appointed bipartisan 18-member commission, charged with considering everything that might reduce the deficit, including spending cuts, new taxes, and changes in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Obama named former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles to co-chair the panel. Simpson is a real fox in the henhouse. He compiled a rotten Senate voting record, has propagated the “greedy geezer” lie about the nation’s elderly, and wants to cut Social Security benefits by changing the statistical formula used to calculate the annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Nor is Bowles a champion of Social Security’s integrity. Bloomberg News quotes him as saying that entitlement programs such as Social Security will turn the nation into a “second-rate power” if their costs aren’t reduced.
“We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there,” Bowles said in a speech to North Carolina bankers. “All of our revenues are completely consumed by entitlements.”
Both Simpson and Bowles have said they would consider recommending a value-added tax, one of the most egregiously regressive ways to raise revenue.
Forty national organizations have written every member of Congress expressing “strong opposition” to any deficit-reduction commission “that would override the normal legislative process.”
Look for a bruising political battle, rivaling that over health care reform, throughout 2010 and into next year. And the stakes are every bit as big.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Alan Simpson: Political poison
By Will Parry
President Obama has appointed former Republican Senator Alan K. Simpson, an inveterate foe of Social Security, to co-chair a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles will be the Democratic co-chair. The President also appointed Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union; Ann Fudge, former Young & Rubicam Brands CEO; David Cote, Honeywell CEO, and Alice Rivlin, former Federal Reserve vice chairman. Twelve members chosen by Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders will round out the panel.
The commission will be charged with coming up with recommendations for steps to reduce the federal deficit. For the Republican panelists, and especially Simpson, that means cutting Social Security and other basic entitlement programs.
The progressive economist Dean Baker cites an example from Simpson’s record that reflects “his hatred for the (Social Security) program.” During his years in the Senate, Simpson pushed a plan to cut the annual COLA to 1% point less than the Consumer Price Index. The effect, Baker says, would be to cut benefits 5% in five years, 10% in ten years and 20% in 20 years.
Writing in The Progressive, Ruth Conniff says that "on the fundamental ideological issues of tax, spending and deficits, Obama is giving away the store."
"Government deficits are not an immediate threat to American citizens," Conniff says. "The immediate threats are unemployment, foreclosure, and personal bankruptcies -- more than 60% of which are attributable to staggering health care debt."
"The fetish of long-term deficit reduction is politically poisonous -- and economically pointless," says economist James Galbraith. "In reality, we need big budget deficits. We need them now. We need bigger deficits to stabilize state and local governments and to provide jobs and payroll tax relief. And we may need them for a long time, on an increasing scale."
The commission's mandate says nothing about jobs or bankruptcies. Simpson and his Republican colleagues on the commission can be expected to recommend bleeding the checks of Social Security recipients to “solve” the federal deficit. Congress would vote on the recommendations by the end of 2010.
Back to Home
President Obama has appointed former Republican Senator Alan K. Simpson, an inveterate foe of Social Security, to co-chair a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles will be the Democratic co-chair. The President also appointed Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union; Ann Fudge, former Young & Rubicam Brands CEO; David Cote, Honeywell CEO, and Alice Rivlin, former Federal Reserve vice chairman. Twelve members chosen by Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders will round out the panel.
The commission will be charged with coming up with recommendations for steps to reduce the federal deficit. For the Republican panelists, and especially Simpson, that means cutting Social Security and other basic entitlement programs.
The progressive economist Dean Baker cites an example from Simpson’s record that reflects “his hatred for the (Social Security) program.” During his years in the Senate, Simpson pushed a plan to cut the annual COLA to 1% point less than the Consumer Price Index. The effect, Baker says, would be to cut benefits 5% in five years, 10% in ten years and 20% in 20 years.
Writing in The Progressive, Ruth Conniff says that "on the fundamental ideological issues of tax, spending and deficits, Obama is giving away the store."
"Government deficits are not an immediate threat to American citizens," Conniff says. "The immediate threats are unemployment, foreclosure, and personal bankruptcies -- more than 60% of which are attributable to staggering health care debt."
"The fetish of long-term deficit reduction is politically poisonous -- and economically pointless," says economist James Galbraith. "In reality, we need big budget deficits. We need them now. We need bigger deficits to stabilize state and local governments and to provide jobs and payroll tax relief. And we may need them for a long time, on an increasing scale."
The commission's mandate says nothing about jobs or bankruptcies. Simpson and his Republican colleagues on the commission can be expected to recommend bleeding the checks of Social Security recipients to “solve” the federal deficit. Congress would vote on the recommendations by the end of 2010.
Back to Home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)