
The progressive group Social Security Works is calling on Alan Simpson to resign as co-chair of the White House's Commission on Fiscal Reform for comparing the entitlement program to "a milk cow with 310 million tits."
"Alan Simpson's comments are offensive and sexist and clearly demonstrate that he is unfit to continue to lead the President's Fiscal Commission," says Eric Kingson, co-director of Social Security Works. "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. If he will not, the President must fire him. 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."
Simpson, the former Republican Senator from Wyoming, was responding to this post, which accused him of pursuing Social Security cuts as a key source of deficit reductions. He responded to the author by email, insisting that he's trying to save Social Security, and claiming, "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!"
Simpson's no stranger to unhinged responses to critics. In the below video he pops off at a critic from the blog Firedoglake from Social Security Works named Alex Lawson. Lawson happened to be armed with a video camera. The footage is hosted at Firedoglake.
Whether or not comparing Social Security to a milking cow is sexist or agrarian, we'll leave to the reader.
mgmonklewis
August 25, 2010 12:25 PM
Alan Simpson is, and always was, a jackass. Why this guy is considered a statesman is beyond me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
August 25, 2010 12:27 PM
I can't wait to see who Obama appoints to replace him, if he does step down. Do you think John Galt is available for the post?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mattomega
August 25, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to libdevil
Who is John Galt? Is John Galt your mom?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 25, 2010 12:32 PM
Simpson is an ass, just to continue the barnyard analogy....but to be precise, shouldn't it be teats, rather than tits?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
August 25, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to Douglas
Yeah...that's what I think he meant to convey and it would have sounded better. But again, whether he used "tits" or "teats" is the least offensive element of his statement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
August 25, 2010 12:36 PM
OK, let's not go overboard with the sexist stuff. The TPM picture is appropriate - his frame of reference is a cow feeding calves or a dog nursing puppies...this has nothing to do with women's breasts. What this group should have led with was the far more offensive and radical implication in Simpson's statement - that Social Security is just some big unearned entitlement and people need to be weaned off it...and he's co-chairing a commission that's supposed to figure out how to save Social Security, not kill it. They get to that and I think it's the primary message of their complaint but they didn't really need to go all out on the sexist charge...or at least not lead with it. That's what the media will focus on (if they focus on it at all) - the sex angle...and that's just a distraction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
August 25, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to ogliberal
agree. metaphors be damned. the sin here is the implication that socoal security is not a benefit we've already paid for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
August 25, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to thomas1
The sin here is that a Democratic president created this cat food commission and appionted this typical red-state welfare hypocrite to it.
This asshole is Obama's man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Douglashh
August 25, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to thomas1
Thomas1, the problem is that we have NOT paid for Social Security or we wouldn't be having a debate on how to fix it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Angry McAngus
August 25, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Douglashh
BUZZZZZZ!
Nope Douglashh I'm afraid you're answer is wrong, but thank you for playing. Now, who is this "we" to which you refer?
Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 25, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to Angry McAngus
The real problem is that Social Security was required by law to invest the surplys in U.S. Treasury notes -- in other words, lend it to the Federal government; and now the "consevative" legislators want the Federal government to default of the debt; you know, "run government like a business" the way Republicans always say, and business is allowed to just declare itself insolvent and hurt everybody who loaned it money, and everybody to whom it owes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Angry McAngus
August 25, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to condew
I respectfully submit an alternate narrative:
Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Source: "Trust Fund FAQs," Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
We have to ask ourselves, "Who stands to gain from the propagation of the other narrative, that Social Security is going broke?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
August 25, 2010 12:50 PM
I don't see the sexist element, just the hatred of Social Security conservatives have had since it was proposed. To have someone like that on the commission tells me this should be one of those commission reports that moves immediately to some shelf to collect dust.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biff diggerence
August 25, 2010 12:53 PM
Worthless gasbag from unpopulated flyover.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 25, 2010 12:54 PM
Simpson should go.
This is serious gaffe, more serious than Gibbs' "Professional Left" and the accusations the nutwing made of Shirley Sherrod. I can't help but be furious that this guys calls my 35 years of contributing a little under 8% of my paycheck into Social Security a "tit", an entitlement.
Its an entitlement, alright. I PUT that money in there. Its mine, and I'm entitled to it when I retire!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ignotus
August 25, 2010 12:54 PM
If only it were clear that Obama backs a fully- and publically-funded Social Security! He appointed people to the Commission who favor privatization. See, for example,. William Greider's story here: http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks. I"m not sure what sort of transgression would make him kick someone off the commission. Simpson advocating a return to feudalism, indentured servitude and debtors' prisons? The bar seems to be pretty high.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
August 25, 2010 1:08 PM
Simpson has stayed too long at the fair.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 25, 2010 1:08 PM
What scares me is that Obama appointed this guy and 13 like him to a "deficit commission" with 18 members. So after we bailed out Wall Street, after we bailed out he banks, after we bailed out GM, we not only could not help homeowners, we are now going to balence the budget on the backs of the orphaned, the sick, and the old. That's not Christian, it's not what I thought the Democratic party stood for, and it's not the country I grew up in.
Obama is already telegraphing that any cut to Social Security other than out right elimination of it will be fine with him. Obama thinks he's a great negotiator, but he ALWAYS gives away the store. He should be defending Social Security (He is still a Democrat isn't he?), and make Social Security's opponents fight very hard and very, very publicly for every penny they want to cut.
And what of Medicare?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Capn Chucky
August 25, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to condew
Hey, is balancing the budget on the backs of the orphaned, the sick and the old, an Islamic concept? Maybe Orly Taitz is on to something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 25, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to Capn Chucky
"balancing the budget on the backs of the orphaned, the sick and the old" is a very Republican idea. For Republicans, we are all units of production, to be disposed of a cheaply as possible once we're used up.
I believe the Moslem ideals for looking after the poor are even more strong than those of Christians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
August 25, 2010 1:20 PM
So Simpson's solution is, apparently, to kill the cow for hamburgers and let the next generation starve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 25, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to agio
There's a lot of profit in them hamburgers - of course you have to own the cow to reap the profit. But keep working, and maybe, just maybe, one day, you'll own a cow too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zandru
August 25, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to agio
That's an excellent way of stating it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Damiana
August 25, 2010 1:33 PM
Wait, what? "Call when you get honest work?"
Really, Alan Simpson???
Someone needs to point out to him that people on Social Security are retired and that the reason they're on Social Security is that they've been doing "honest work" for DECADES and paying into the fund all that time.
Methinks someone has been feeding at the public trough way too long now and needs to go find some "honest work" himself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimson
August 25, 2010 1:57 PM
I don't have a problem with his language. I admit it's odd, but I suspect it's just "old-fashioned." Sexist? I don't think so. There's not any "gender-neutral" animal he could use in that metaphor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
August 25, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to jimson
His language is obviously offensive, describing social security recipients as, basically, leeches.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
August 25, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
Alpha,
Simpson is one of those mentalities that come along every so many years to sit on a panel ostensibly to "reform" something. "Reform" is usually a euphemism for taking money and benefits from the bottom 95% and transferring it to the top five percent.
Sad to say there are too many Democrats willing to join the Simpsons of the world in their nefarious work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
August 25, 2010 2:22 PM
Shorter Simpson: "Only I get to talk; you asking questions is just "flash words"."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vix29
August 25, 2010 2:26 PM
social security is our money, paid for by us the workers of america. what does he want to do with it? he problaby has some ponzi scheme to give it to the rich, like him
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
August 25, 2010 3:01 PM
With Alan Simpson resurfacing can Phil Gramm be far behind?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 25, 2010 3:22 PM
It's funny how no matter who you vote for, all the bad ideas still seem to get enacted. Not ha ha funny, funny strange.
Cuts to Social Security sounds like something John McCain would have done, and he did not win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
August 25, 2010 3:29 PM
Umm, when's the last time Grandpa Simpson held a job in which the salary didn't come from the taxpayers? Talk about milking the cow. I'm guessing he isn't returning his fat Congressional pension payments to the government, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Uncle Robbie
August 25, 2010 3:42 PM
I don't suppose it's possible the Senator could have been referring to the abuses in the Social Security Disability system... or would that be too logical?
As for it being a sexist comment, maybe I'm just not sensitive enough. Then again, I'm not a cow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cha
August 25, 2010 9:21 PM
Welcome to ---------------- http://www.newgoing.com
We are specialized in offering all kinds of top brand shoes, jeans, t-
shirts, bikini, swimwear, jacket, jerseys, watches, purses, handbags,
belts, wallets , sunglasses and hats etc.
Accept paypal ,All the prices list on our website include shipping
cost,insurance,tax etc..
$30 nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike shox shoes,gucci shoes
$35 true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction jeans,
Laguna Beach Jeans
$14 ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci
T-shirts,Polo T-shirts.
$35 coach handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag.
fbgfd
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?