
When Alan Simpson stepped in it late Tuesday he probably didn't think he'd find himself on the receiving end of a barrage of criticism and calls for him to resign his position as co-chair of the White House's fiscal reform commission. After all, comparing Social Security to a "milk cow with 310 million tits" is inartful and inapt, but hardly a terminal offense.
Except Alan Simpson isn't just any old Social Security commentator, and progressives, say what they will, weren't really reacting to the analogy or the questionable language. They were reacting to Simpson himself, who's spent much of his life looking for ways to fundamentally alter (he would say "enhance", but most would say "cut") Social Security. To them, Simpson's criticism was a harbinger of how the 18-member commission will propose to change the most popular entitlement program in the country, and it raises the question, again, of why President Obama appointed him in the first place.
Simpson, a Republican, was elected to the Senate in 1978 to represent the state of Wyoming, and wasted little time setting his sites on Social Security. "I just happen to believe that Social Security and Medicare are so out of whack they ought to be constantly subject to budgetary review to identify unnecessary duplicative activities in the same way that every other Federal program is," he said on September 16, 1985, according to the Congressional Record.
As chairman of the Social Security subcommittee, he had unusual influence over the program, and has since found himself at the epicenter of several efforts to reform taxes and entitlements over the years. In 1994, he served on President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform -- what's come to be known as the Kerrey-Danforth Commission named after its chairs, former Sens. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) and John Danforth (R-MO).
As a member of that commission, he advocated for numerous changes to Social Security, including benefit cuts and partial privatization. And he had a familiarly condescending attitude toward advocates who didn't agree with him, deriding their "cut-someone-else-but-not-me" view of entitlements. "The biggest barrier to our work on this commission is not going to be greed, it's not going to be ideology, it's going to be ignorance," he said.
In an exchange with then-CBO Director Robert Reischauer he exclaimed, "what will get us home is dealing with the years in the future, changing some of the figures of Social Security, phasing in retirement dates, changing retirement dates, doing something with COLAs. Those things could get us there, couldn't they?"
Reischauer agreed, "They could." But Simpson wanted more.
"You think they could get us there?" he asked.
"I just said they could," Reischauer said. "You mentioned a pretty extensive list there of some pretty severe changes."
An undeterred Simpson responded "Without, quote, 'cutting a benefit,' unquote."
"Well, I don't want to get into semantics here on what is cutting a benefit," Reischauer said, "but if I were a 65-year-old person who was told that they couldn't receive benefits until they were 70, I might regard that as a benefit cut."
Simpson tried to change the subject, "Well, the monthly amount they receive is called the benefit. The [cost of living adjustment] was never part of that. As I understand Social Security, that was never part of a contract."
"I was talking about extending the retirement age," Reischauer responded.
The members of the Kerrey-Danforth Commission never reached consensus on entitlement reform, but Simpson was undeterred. After it wrapped, he partnered with his former fellow commissioners on legislation that would have made the changes he'd pressed for, including allowing people to redirect part of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts.
Those efforts likewise failed, and Simpson retired. His privatization idea, however, was later promoted by former president George W. Bush while in office. It may end up, again, part of the GOP's plans in 2011.
And now Simpson's resurfaced as co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. And though his arguments have changed somewhat, his goals remain the same.
"[When Social Security was created] they never dreamed that the life expectancy [would go] from 57 years of age to 78 or 75 or whatever," Simpson told a critic in an exchange caught on video. "Who would dream that? No one. They just died."
In reality, lower life expectancy in the early 1900s was a function of higher infant mortality, but people who reached retirement age back then lived typically lived for years thereafter.
Simpson also recently attacked another critic, and Social Security expert named Dean Baker. But it wasn't till Tit-gate that the calls for his resignation came flooding in. One such call comes from the AFL-CIO.
"It's troubling that the chairman of this important commission is suggesting that fighting to protect seniors from benefit cuts is not honest work," said Kelly Ross, AFL's Deputy Director of Policy. "Because that's what we do."
"The mission of the deficit commission is not about shoring up the funding gap over the long term. That's not its mission. Its mission is to look at entitlement spending," Ross said. "The troubling thing is that you have this attitude from a pretty powerful and influential commission that Social Security recipients are somehow taking advantage of the system and are somehow responsible for the deficit problem."
TPM reached out to Simpson by email, but did not get a response before press time.
mtrav
August 26, 2010 1:04 PM
This is Obama worst pick for anything. I can't what was on his mind when he appointed this pig. His reputation precedes him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KY Yellow Dog
August 26, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to mtrav
Playing Nixon goes to China by killing Social Security, that's what's on his mind.
Earning the love of the repugs who abuse him by not doing the things that make them abuse him, that's what's on his mind.
Shitting in the face of all those dirty fucking hippies who got his appeasing ass elected, that's what's on his mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 26, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to KY Yellow Dog
What's on my mind is someone primarying his useless Presidential ass....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alkfuiwueiu
August 26, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to KY Yellow Dog
Everything is true!
Go in look look: http://www.bizboysell.com
Believe that you may need.
$^#^#$^#$^#$^#$^#$#^$^#$#^$&^^*%*^%*^%^*%*^%*^%
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Jervis
August 26, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to mtrav
It could also be a brilliant plan by the president to discredit advocates of cuts to Social Security by putting their worst representative at the head of the commission.
I wouldn't bet on that, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
August 26, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to John Jervis
11-dimensional chess is back!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
myshadow
August 26, 2010 8:15 PM in reply to mtrav
Simpson is yet another fig leaf. The President used leiberman last year to scuttle the public option. He complied with ben nelson and blanche lincoln, and had max baucus strangle healthcare with the help of grassley to sell out to pharma and the insurance companies..
The fact is, The President knew, because simpson made no secret of his wish to dismantle SS, what he was doing when he put him on the cat food commission.
This will explode when any voter from age 45ish and up.
Forget about blaming rahm. The President is the top cop, and not dumb, he isn't 'out of touch', he IS a corporatist blue dog.
The other silent but deadly malfeasance is the BP oil spill coverup before our eyes.
No criminal charges for BP, they dropped the case on AIG, won't look back on war crimes.
If bush pulled this crap we would be apoplectic, we voted against this kind of crap.
Sorry, the BP thing is total bush in obama's suit, and now they are trying to bush redux on Social Security.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
August 26, 2010 9:05 PM in reply to mtrav
Alan Simpson in any position of governmental authority is middle-class America's worst nightmare.
Fire him now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
August 27, 2010 9:25 AM in reply to mtrav
So let's see now: The oldest Baby Boomers are 64 this year. What the hell do they expect us to do?
We gave up pensions for sinking 401Ks. How does doing away with SS help anything with the sad state of our economy?
The message to Baby Boomers is: Drop Dead!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
osage
August 26, 2010 1:05 PM
WHY DOES THE WHITE HOUSE CONTINUE TO ALIENATE PROGRESSIVES?
Leaving Republican Alan Simpson in a position to cripple/eliminate Social Security is the type of irrational action that will CAUSE the defeat of Democrats/Obama.
THE LEFT ISN’T THE PROBLEM; THE CORPORATE WING OF THE PARTY IS.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010083210/gibbs-left-dog-bites-man
"The left isn't the problem; the corporate wing of the party is. The left hasn't gotten in the president's way, for better or worse. It's the corporate right of the party—the Blue Dogs and New Democrats—that have stood in the way."
"The left hasn't been a rebel; it's been too good a soldier."
"The White House has been hurt less because the left is critical, but because the White House isn't listening. The left correctly understood the White House faced a pitched battle over the direction of the country, not a post-racial, pragmatic, bipartisan era of good feelings."
8 OUT OF 10 DEMOCRATS THE COOK REPORT JUST DOWNGRADED ARE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS!
by John Aravosis
"The big lesson of 2010 for Democrats will be that if you govern like a Blue Dog and put corporate contributors ahead of your constituents, you lose. If you listen to what progressives have been telling you all along and stand up to corporations on issues like the public option and Wall Street reform, you win -- especially among Independent voters." -- Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
August 26, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to osage
tldr version:
I'M OUTRAGED BECAUSE OBAMA HASN'T CUT SOCIAL SECURITY.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 26, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to osage
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
August 26, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
Freebagger once again assumes the ostrich position whenever anyone notes a less-than-perfect policy decision of Freebagger's One True Idol. This position, of course, conveniently leaves the other end exposed and spewing.
Simpson's profound hatred of Social Security and the "greedy geezers" and "Pink Panthers" who rely on it, those sucking parasites (by the numbers, the entire population of America) who do now or will someday rely on the "milk cow with 310 million tits", together with his profound ignorance of how the system actually works, are a matter of record, thanks to Krugman and other actual economists who have exposed his disinformation. Dean Baker summed it up quite nicely right here at the Café:
Nobody forced Freebagger's idol to put Simpson in that position. Not those mean old Republicans, not those mean old Senators, not the mean old Blue Doggies. Nope, the POTUS did that all by himself. The best we can expect out of the Freebagger's tuchis is more zzzz's. Nice to see Freebagger continuing his long tradition of Palinesque distortion and denial of anything that doesn't fit his hero-worshiping worldview.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 27, 2010 7:14 AM in reply to gharlane
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz X2
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
August 27, 2010 9:17 AM in reply to FreeRider
You may sleep but bet you that the recent drop in Obama's numbers includes a bunch of seniors who vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 27, 2010 9:52 AM in reply to AJM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz X3
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
August 27, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to AJM
Freebagger should really get that little flatulence problem under control, don't you think?
That noise you're hearing (or reading) is a function of where Freebagger's head is (think: ostrich), where his tuchis is (think: ostrich), and which end he uses both to think and to speak (think: zzzzzzzzzzz).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
Suck my tits, asshole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 27, 2010 7:16 AM in reply to commie atheist
Suck your own tits. They're low-hanging enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bushdidit
August 27, 2010 7:57 AM in reply to FreeRider
zzzzzzzzz back at ya
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mimi katz
August 26, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to osage
More to the point, why does it want to continuie to alienate seniors and women?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 26, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to osage
Yeah, well since the 'Blue Dogs' are Rahmbo's beotches don't look for President "Speechifyin' Jones" to do anything...
...like kick some @ss and take names. Does anyone honestly think that the likes of Ben Nelson, Lieberbutt or any of the rest of the DINOs would get away with their stupidities if LBJ or FDR was running things?
Even Carter had more sand than this 'conflict averse' patsy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
August 26, 2010 9:05 PM in reply to osage
"WHY DOES THE WHITE HOUSE CONTINUE TO ALIENATE PROGRESSIVES?"
- Because they don't matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 26, 2010 10:56 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Yep. Progressives had nothing to do with Obama beating Hillary Clinton and then winning the presidency. They were completely irrelevant to his campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:01 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Suck my tits, asshole. Again and again and again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Free
August 26, 2010 1:38 PM
I am just curious why a deficit commission is taking aim a program that is currently running a surplus and will not be underwater until 2037 by most estimates.
It is true that this year SS took in less in payroll taxes than it paid out, but the previous years it ran a surplus that was invested in T Bonds which bear actual interest, not some imaginary lock box, so it was able to pay benefits without touching the general fund.
Social Security does not add a dime to the current deficit and even when it needs to be addressed, it is a relatively easy formula that will require very modest cuts and very modest payroll tax increase. we dont need to be discussing SS for another decade, it currently pays for itself and when the time comes to discuss, it wont be a crisis, just a change in public policy.
the same cannot be said for Medicare, which has not banked a deficit, is already tapping the general fund and is the greatest threat to the long term deficit. I am sorry to say that cuts and tax increases will NOT be modest if we plan to keep this program.
there are currently two deficits and one surplus. the General fund and Medicare are operating at dangerously systemic deficits, while SS is currently operating at a surplus and poses no systemic risk at this time or in the near future.
Keep the SS revenue and benefits separate from the rest of the sewer that is the federal budget and there is no problem with SS
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MsMolly
August 26, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to Joe Free
Exactly. I've been saying the same thing.
But perhaps we both err in assuming those who want to dismantle Social Security actually care about facts.
Okay, not "perhaps" and not just "about facts." They don't care. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 8:38 PM in reply to Joe Free
First, thanks for being one of the few to speak about Medicare’s very real threat to our nation. Although I’m not sure what you meant by ‘which has not banked a deficit’?
You do know, though, the Social Security trust fund is empty, right? So that makes any discussion of it’s assets sitting around as available cash on hand at best bogus? And that means that EVERY penny of payroll tax shortfall, starting THIS year, is funded directly from general revenue.
‘Very modest’ Social Security adjustments? Our definitions are quite different. Per the GAO SS is present value unfunded by $18.6 trillion. That’s 7 times Federal revenue. So every tax payer owes 7 times their annual income and Social Security (both halves) taxes, TODAY! You sending a 7x check tomorrow might seem ‘very modest’, but I’m pretty sure it’s a much bigger deal to nearly all the rest of us.
By ‘General fund’ are you referring to the federal budget?
So with everything above, we’re all left wondering if all your mistakes here were honest, or intentional?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
August 26, 2010 9:20 PM in reply to GOP
We could ask the same of you and your assertions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 10:09 PM in reply to donquijoterocket
My mistakes? Please elucidate with differing and superior facts of your own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:04 PM in reply to GOP
Here's a superior fact: you're a fucking liar, and you suck ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 11:22 PM in reply to commie atheist
Wow. Did I hit a nerve? Regarding my 'lie(s)' could you be a little more specific?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
August 27, 2010 8:53 AM in reply to GOP
And that means that EVERY penny of payroll tax shortfall, starting THIS year, is funded directly from general revenue.
Well, let's start with your disingenuous pretense that you and fellow travelers are "shocked, shocked" to find that is the case.
We can then transition to exploring how it is that the GOP steadfastly refused to protect the surpluses for being used to supplement the general revenue so as to conceal the true size of budget deficits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to GOP
Fuck off, asshole. You're talking points are lame, and you are an asshole. Suck my tits, bitch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
August 26, 2010 11:32 PM in reply to GOP
You do know, though, the Social Security trust fund is empty, right?
Last I checked, the trust fund contained Treasury notes. If those are worthless, then there's a whole lotta fund managers who ought to be jumping out of 100th-floor windows right about now. Not to mention a whole lot of governments (like, oh, I don't know, China for example) that might become just a wee bit ticked off to find out their holdings are, to use your word, "empty."
Now it's true that the .gov will have to cough up cash when it comes time to redeem those notes. And it's also true that the .gov has "used" a good chunk of these funds to pay for things like bloated Pentagon budgets, two useless and endless wars ($3 trillion), the Republican-backed unfunded pharma giveaway known as "Medicare Part D" ($9.4 trillion unfunded liability, per NYT), tax giveaways to Big Oil and similar industries; slashing taxes for the top 1% and for those whose "work" consists of sitting around the pool and watching the dividend checks roll in, tax loopholes allowing billionaire hedge fund and private equity managers to pay far lower taxes (15% tops) than those making a fraction of that amount, among other lovely priorities. Most if not all of these "programs" have been, pure and simple, class warfare: a massive wealth transfer to the top 2% from.... well.... the rest of us, middle class, working class, and poor. And if Social Security benefits get cut, that means the double Social Security taxes I and the rest of the boomers/GenXers started paying in the 1980s thanks to Reagan and Greenspan, for the specific stated purpose of maintaining those benefits, will go to the same top 1-2%, completing the upward wealth transfer and finishing off the class war. Reagan and Greenspan: Mission accomplished.
So maybe it's time for a reverse wealth transfer. Oddly enough, the economy did just fine under the evil socialist President Eisenhower with top marginal tax rates at 91%, under Kennedy with top marginal tax rates at 77%, under Johnson with top marginal tax rates at 70%, and with lots and lots of banking regulations put in place the last time the banksters wrecked our economic system. (See:1929 -- which incidentally was also the last time we've seen the lopsided wealth distribution that we've seen in the last 10 years or so. Also, not coincidentally, the last time period with rates as low as they were under Reagan and Bush II were -- did you guess? -- 1925 to 1931.) The boom-bust cycles with asset bubbles expanding and then going "pop" restarted when Reagan started deregulating the banksters and the Republican Congress, aided and abetted by President Clinton, accelerated the process of laissez-faire casino banking deregulation. (Clinton, to his credit, also left the first federal budget surplus since 1969, and in order to do that he raised top marginal rates to - zOMG! Horrors! 39.6%!)
The outcome of this "deficit reduction" project will prove, pretty conclusively, whether we live in a democracy or in an oligarchy/plutocracy. It's pretty clear that you're cheering for the latter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Realist
August 27, 2010 10:13 AM in reply to gharlane
gharlane,
This is the most astute comment that I have read in years. Sadly it is a message totally lost on the White House, the Congress and the many quasi-legislative regulatory commissions that make up our government. Why would that be so? Your message is not that complex. Could it be that you (and I) failed to bribe our servants to do the job we elected them to do?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Druthers
August 27, 2010 8:09 AM in reply to GOP
How is life in outer space?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 8:27 AM in reply to Druthers
It's a little scary. I keep seeing these things ripping by my spaceship. I can't tell if they're space junk or progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Steel
August 27, 2010 7:22 AM in reply to Joe Free
"I am just curious why a deficit commission is taking aim a program that is currently running a surplus and will not be underwater until 2037 by most estimates.
Ideology, maybe, or a biased view of reality.
Everyone on the Commission, indeed, everyone in government is very well paid and is not in danger of a bleak retirement. They don't have a stake in the game. The outcome won't affect them. They can afford to be staunch defenders of rugged individualism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Free
August 26, 2010 1:43 PM
to add above, it is expected that recovering payroll taxes will soon exceed benefits once again, so there will be an actual and accrued surplus in SS in the next few years before once again they will have to tap the TBond interest to pay benefits
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KY Yellow Dog
August 26, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to Joe Free
Because the goal is not and never has been fixing the deficit or "saving" social security; if it were, we'd have single-payer healthcare.
The short-term goal is destroying social security, which goes a long way toward the long-term goal, which is destroying the entire New Deal, and thus the Democratic Party.
Obama goes along because he truly believes that the only policies worth fighting for are those republicans approve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
August 26, 2010 2:05 PM
The Obmatons can lie and insult their betters all they want but they won't be able to wipe the stain of the Catfood Commission from their beloved president. Nobody forced him to create the commission- he did it by executive order after Congress failed to pass a bill establishing it. Nobody forced him to give the Congressional Republican leadership major representation on it. And nobody forced him to stack the six slots directly filled by him him with the likes of Grandpa Simpson, "corporate America's friend in the White House" Erskine Bowles, Alica Rivlin (on Pete Peterson's payroll), and the CEO of Honeywell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 26, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
So, based on "what you just know" and on some press coverage of one old fool who didn't get his way last time and won't get it this time, you don't think it might be at least worth waiting to see what actually gets proposed, and then what happens to the proposal in Congress, before getting outraged about it?
Because honest to god, it's the constant advance extreme outrage over crystal ball hypothetical outcomes that I find wearying.
And that's most destructive. Destructive because it seems like whenever the worst case scenario predicted with such certainty doesn't happen, nobody says "well, okay we were wrong about that." Instead, they just declare whatever does happen to be as bad, or worse, than the Ultimate Bad Thing they thing they were predicting and, whatever it is, add it to the ever-growing list of Administration "insults" and "slights" that so amply justify all the insults and slights that they constantly heap on the Administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
August 26, 2010 5:26 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I cited verifiable facts (that go way beyond Grandpa's outburst). Predictably, you reply with bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 26, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
And if they don't come out and demand the abolition of Social Security, or, hell, even if they do and it dies in Congress like a thousand blue ribbon commission reports before it because Democrats won't vote for Social Security cuts and Republicans won't vote for tax increases, where's this horrible "stain" of which you speak?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
August 26, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
More bullshitting. How about trying to come up with some excuse for Obama's creation of this commission? Oh, and while you're at it, an excuse for not firing Abe Simpson?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
August 26, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I want to know why Simpson, a person with a long history of open hositility towards SS, was put on this commission to begin with. There are many R's out there Obama could have chosen from. Why did he pick the one person most hostile to SS to help lead a commission looking at the program? And so far all of the defenders to the death of this administration have no answers except to call people asking these questions "firebaggers" and insulting us. I am left no recourse than to think Obama is of the same thinking as Simpson on the issue of SS...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
August 26, 2010 8:17 PM in reply to Libertine
I'm not so sure about that.
When I read in comment above about CEO of Honeywell being on the commission too, what I think is Obama's true believe is in an American oligarchy. I can't think of anything he's done that has been truly offensive or confrontational to big business and millionaires since he's been in office (including mandating private health coverage), and he's definitely more comfortably shoveling huge amounts of taxpayer dollars their way than back to the American people.
He's a corporatist through and through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
August 26, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
My point being that I think any considerations of his on SS are secondary at best. What happens to SS is incidental to his primary desire to appease corporate interests, accepting their "natural" place as the true leaders of US society. Like Clinton before him, he thinks if he talks about regular people, throws them a bone once in a while, and is less evil than Bush (I or II), then he's doing his job as a democrat. He never wanted substantial change in the American power structure and the disproportionate influence of business interests.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 10:20 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Obama's excuse for creating the commission? So he, like nearly every other elected official of the past 20 years, can pretend to be doing something about our spending the nation into oblivion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:05 PM in reply to GOP
Shut the fuck up. Go away unless you have something intelligent to add to the conversation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 26, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You're either missing or evading the central point. Why in the hell did Obama put Simpson, someone incredibly hostile to Social Security, on this commission? It was a choice and a poor one. Why hand this guy a megaphone?
It's mind boggling to me that anyone would frame this in terms of the never ending Obama lovers vs. Obama haters/not likers on TPM. Any person who considers themselves progressive or liberal or whatever you want to call it should be incredibly annoyed that Alan Simpson was given a stake in deciding the future of Social Security. There is simply no rational justification for it--yes, I'll be that point blank about it--and no escaping the fact that Obama should never have appointed him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
August 26, 2010 7:56 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson
"Why in the hell did Obama put Simpson, someone incredibly hostile to Social Security, on this commission?"
Simple, Rahmbo told him to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 26, 2010 8:29 PM in reply to tytester
Exactly!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tulkinghorn
August 27, 2010 4:46 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Why put him on the commission?
It may sound like 11-dimensional chess, but it serves a purpose. Put the most high profile anti-SSers on the commission, then let them try to write whatever crap they want to in the report. Takes a few months, defuses the criticism that Obama is willing to let SS bankrupt the country (which it won't, but you know that already).
Then, when the report is done, Obama can ignore it, or criticise it, or run against it. But there will be a thing to oppose and run against, a document the factual basis of which and the reasoning of which can be directly attacked. This is a big improvement over fighting against the vast, gormless cloud of nonsense being generated in the corporate media.
Basic trial strategy: get the other side in a deposition and nail down their testimony. Give them their best shot to make their case, then take it apart at leisure. If some new theory gets cooked up by the Heritage Foundation six months from now, you can ask where in hell they came up with this crackpot claim no-one had ever heard of before, because just six months ago the Catfood Commission could not even imagine this ridiculous claim.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BrownEye
August 26, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Good for you. Finally some rational and reasonable thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mwfolsom
August 27, 2010 12:19 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Look this is gonna happen quickly after the election. The commission your beloved Obama, the guy who promised us openness, created isn't gonna release its recommendations till after the election and the whole mess will be voted on by early December. If we wait to see what the haters of Social Security come up with before we organize it will be too late. Nancy P has already scheduled a vote in the House after the election and no doubt the fix is being setup in the Senate.
Don't you see the fix is in and the Dems in DC all know it but just like the public option being dead before it was ever considered the attack on Social Security is already set up. We have to stop it now - there won't be a chance to do it later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
August 26, 2010 2:06 PM
I was very discouraged by the White House, whose spokesperson released a statement late in the day to indicate that Senator Simpson would not be fired. That statement was more focused on the tone of Mr. Simpson's email. This article is on point. President Obama should consider whether keeping Mr. Simpson is sending the wrong message regarding Social Security.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
August 26, 2010 2:39 PM
Why is this fascist rightwing dinosaur on any Commission in the Executive Branch?
My God, you would think a Republican was in the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 26, 2010 2:42 PM
This Wyoming cowboy has been bucked off of one too many broncos, and now wants to strap a saddle on the horse he’s already rode to death (SS), dig in his spurs, give a hearty ya-hoo, and somehow magically breathe life into it. Mr. Simpson, I know a little bit about a cow’s udder as a product of early 40s life on the farm in NE., I’ve pulled my share of them. One thing I learned from that experience was that when you leave raw milk set for a period of time, the cream separates and comes to the top. My friend, your 2% dialogue will never see the top of a cream can. Simply put, you don’t possess enough butter fat. Now, you challenged Ms. Carson by saying "If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know," I don’t know Ms. Carson, but I am offering to take her place, I do have a better idea, and my guess is you won’t have enough balls to accept my challenge, but if you do go to www.socialsecuritysolution.org and bone up; then let’s saddle up, and get it on. Fox, MSNBC, you name it, or maybe my “Rented Mule” radio show
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 26, 2010 2:44 PM
How many people are on this comission who make an average salary and have average savings and assets; you know, the people who will depend on Social Security? Anybody on the comission that does not have a different government pension such as the old government plan or a military pension?
NONE?
No wonder these old, rich members of the committee see nothing wrong with breaking promises that many generations before them have considered unbreakable.
What the hell was Obama thinking? Is Obama a closet Republican? Maybe, when Obama was working his back-room deals with the insurance industry on Health care, he made another one to sell all our futures out to Wall Street.
If Obama doesn't get off his ass and start defending Social Security and Medicare, I might spend my retirement organizing other cheated seniors to make sure his retirement is a hell of always tripping over angry old people who spit on him, anywhere he goes. Same goes for any Congressman who votes for Social Security cuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
August 26, 2010 4:15 PM
I wrote the White House yesterday demanding that Simpson be fired. If enough people do, including AARP (which I have little use for, but they can make noise) maybe we can get him out of there.
I do not want my Social Security stolen by Skelator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
August 26, 2010 4:59 PM
Are we sure that Alan Simpson is actually still alive? Because it suddenly hit me that an unidentified man that was pulled out of a reservoir near Farmville a couple of years ago (and was featured on the news last night) looks an awful lot like him.
Kinda doubt ol' Alan would have had Dixie tattoos on his body, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
August 26, 2010 5:16 PM
Ok, another unpopular thing I'm gonna say today.
I'm not entirely opposed to cutting or reforming SS a little bit. But, and this is a big BUT, it has to be done in conjunction with a larger deal that reforms the tax code, makes it more progressive, possibly implements a refudnable consumption tax (national sales tax or VAT0, and overall gets our fiscal house in order for the long term.
Alan Simpson is a throwback to the old school, crusty, Real conservatives who believed that you also had to raise taxes to close deficits (so he's before Reagan! OLD!). Also, he says crazy sh*t all the time, so I arrive at two conclusions. Either:
- Simpson is doing this to shore up his right-wing credentials, which he will need if the commission is going to recommend any tax increases
- Or he's just an old crazy bastard who tried to say something funny, but ended up spooking more people than he should have.
It'll be interesting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FDRdog
August 26, 2010 7:52 PM in reply to mezcalero
You're very young, aren't you? Either that or very wealthy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:07 PM in reply to FDRdog
Or incredibly stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
August 27, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to commie atheist
Seriously guys, tell me how you really feel :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
August 27, 2010 10:13 AM in reply to mezcalero
I'm up for reforming it a lot.
For starters, a transaction fee on securities and investment vehicles of all kinds.
(If for no other reason than to decrease volatility - oil on the waters if you will. But the revenue will be really useful too.)
Then we'll look at graduating capital gains taxes to make them more progressive than income taxes are at present.
(Motto for this effort: I like Ike)
No need to mess with FICA or Medicare payroll taxes; I think that maintaining them broadens the stakeholder class, so that the brokers and wealth managers don't feel unfairly put upon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
August 27, 2010 10:24 AM in reply to kenga
I see I failed to specify how SS would be reformed by these things - I meant that they would supplement FICA contributions until all surplus SS funds have been re-established. Then they
can be applied to general fund deficits and paying down the national debt. Then we can transition the Defense budget to be solely provisioned by them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
August 27, 2010 10:32 AM in reply to kenga
Um, I'm not entirely sympathetic to wealth managers like you, but I do want to focus on one thing you said:
"Then we'll look at graduating capital gains taxes to make them more progressive than income taxes are at present."
This is rather unworkable since most capital gains taxes are paid by the investor class anyway. It's a tax on unearned income subject only upon the point of sale of the asset, and subject only if the asset increased in value.
The flat capital gains tax is inherently progressive. That's why Republicans are always trying to get rid of it. You know, cuz they like high earners more than poor people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchoolyT
August 26, 2010 5:34 PM
OK, I've contributed about $100k to SS over my life. Not a huge sum, but hard earned money. So, if SS goes away, what happens to the money I contributed? Is it just gone, "So sorry, Schooly, but you drew the short straw."
You can bet that if I don't see some kind of benefit for a career's worth of contributions, I WILL punish every politician I feel is responsible at the ballot box and become one really nasty person until my final breath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gtheonion
August 26, 2010 5:37 PM
Why does the link to this article (via RSS) mention means testing? namely, "phasing the program out or slow dismantlement through means testing." The article itself doesn't mention Simpson wanting to use means testing, and I've never understood means testing to be a "cut" to the program. Means testing has always seemed to be a minor tweak to the program to help its solvency, and in fact make it more progressive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 26, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to gtheonion
Minor "cut" unless yours is the benefit getting cut, and it could end up like the Alternative Minimum Tax, not inflation adjusted, so without constant efforts by Congress, eventually everyone would get cut; basically a phase-out.
Social Security is already means tested on the tax side. (See step 5 in paper-and-pencil estimate for those elegible to retire this year http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10070-09.html.) The benefit is 90% of the first $8928, 32% of the next $44868, and only 15% of the amount over $44868 that is taxed by Social Security (the form works in months). If your average earnings over 30 years are already over $53,796, you only increase your benefit by 0.5% (15%/30) of the difference between the old year you replace and the new year. So you and your employer each pay 6.1% taxes on $60K, $7320, but you only increase your annual Social Security benefit by at most $300. Further means testing tells those who contribute the most that their benefits would be even less. Want to erode support for the program? That might do it.
If you're going to means test, the tax side is the place to do it; tax me while I'm earning, tax me at the peak in my income, not after I'm retired and need the money more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cmaukonen
August 26, 2010 5:40 PM
Oh God...what chumps Americans are especially those on the right. Here you are considering removing the a decent federal program for retirement because of concern for the federal deficit. All the while driving your imported cars and watching your imported television sets and listening to your imported personal audio players and living in your big mansions made from imported goods. And guess what ? These people who are making all this stuff are doing just fine with their government health care and government pensions and subsidized manufacturing. And you sit here watching the economy slowly go into the dumper feeling oh so self-righteous becuase you don't have any of those things.
SUCKERS !!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
C
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
August 26, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to cmaukonen
Is sucker a Verb or a Noun
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom
August 26, 2010 5:45 PM
John Cornyn is a corn hole.
"safe" republican seat will now very likely turn dem.
Thanks to John Corn holes terrible leadership.
The Dem candidate was an Alaska fisherman on a commercial boat - and runs a balanced budget as mayor.
That is more then can be said for John Cornholes time in the republican senate which ran up deficits for eight years by brown nosing rich lobbyists with the aid of who else - another
Republican family values divorcee - Karl Rove.
Way to go John failure Cornyn
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 26, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to Tom
I see what you did there. Cornyn to Cornholes. Terribly clever. Also it was subtle of you to comment on something completely unrelated to this article.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
August 26, 2010 5:46 PM
Just asking;
Whats wrong with means testing?
It's called Social Security Insurance
Whats wrong with removing the cap?
Maybe we wouldn't need to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 26, 2010 7:55 PM in reply to Resistance
Because it erodes support for the program from those with the biggest influence. Besides, there is already a large degree of means testing. Those averaging under $9K get 90% of however much they can push that average up. Those averaging over $54K get 15% on the incease in their average.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to Resistance
Re: 'Whats wrong with removing the cap', see my post at 'August 26, 2010 8:20 PM'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
August 26, 2010 6:10 PM
Does it really matter what the deficit commission says?
The Democrats in the Congress don't have to go along with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 9:00 PM in reply to Maritza
Yeah, no problem. Let's ignore our nation's $117 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. The rest of the world won't care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tulkinghorn
August 27, 2010 4:52 AM in reply to GOP
The rest of the world does not care. Either their finances are in worse shape (Europe), or they have nowhere else to invest their dollars (China). Treasury prices are staying high, and rates low, for a decade at least. Our biggest risk now is deflation, not inflation.
Tossing away SS for a speculative fear of the bond market squeezing us at some point in the future is damn fool notion, but to be expected from the party of those damn fools on Wall Street.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 6:50 AM in reply to Tulkinghorn
So, were you of the impression that the United States' borrowing capacity, and right to resource consumption are forever infinite?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
August 26, 2010 6:19 PM
Obama clearly is trying to put someone like this on the commission so if it recommends raising the cap or another minor adjustment, he'd be able to tell the right: one of your guys says this is ok.
But he probably underestimates the radicalness and stubbornness of right wingers. There is no reconciliation possible with people who believe that just saying no and standing there like mules is their 'negotiating' position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to MyMy
You the least bit interested in the truth about Social Security's condition? See my post 'August 26, 2010 8:38 PM'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbo92107
August 26, 2010 6:28 PM
If he fires Simpson, Republicans might get mad. Obama doesn't like making Republicans mad.
He likes making liberals mad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
August 26, 2010 8:29 PM in reply to jimbo92107
... and then he complains when his base that he so frequently betrays doesn't line up behind him like lemmings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 10:33 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Yep, he's pretty much lied to all of us. Ain't that Alinsky stuff a bitch?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 27, 2010 1:15 AM in reply to GOP
The right-wing obsession with Saul Alinsky is hysterically funny. I really get a kick out of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tulkinghorn
August 27, 2010 5:10 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Nobody on the left reads Alinsky. On the right, however, they seem to be studying him intently. Shows who the radicals are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 6:54 AM in reply to Tulkinghorn
Did'nt the President teach classes on Alinsky's principals?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brian Wilson
August 26, 2010 6:42 PM
The objective of all this talk of ending Social Security by the Right is not the anti-Socialist talk. It is about subsidizing the Stock Market. The Stock Market's big boon years all were cause by abuse of consumers and the government. With Junk Bonds and Real Estate gone they cannot generate the kinds of profits that they so desperately want. What better way to do this than by turning Social Security into a 401K which will inflate stock prices and make the rich even more money. Then without making one cold call they can just sti back and charge fees for processing automatic payments from each and every taxpayer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to Brian Wilson
Right. Or...
Maybe it has a little to do with being fiscally sentient and preventing national collapse?
And of course there’s always the fundamental left/right differences that are never mentioned: An 80 year ponzi scheme that instead of assisting our society to become self sufficient, has made us more governmentally dependent. One that for the last 50 years (post baby boom) was known to be a millstone around the nation’s neck. And at that point, instead of making the situation better, we passed medicare just to expedite our downfall. And now this past spring, our elected officials hide all the fiscal realities of their nationalized healthcare and double down on ideology. A $1.2 trillion 20 year solution to a $90 trillion TODAY problem. In what world is that not a lie with an agenda?
You can help turn things around anytime you want. Just take a little turn towards the truth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 26, 2010 11:51 PM in reply to GOP
I'm sorry but do you actually know what a Ponzi scheme is? Because when a program is started over 70 years ago, money is collected, and then money is paid out to those who paid in, and when that program is still functioning today as is the case (people, you know, get their Social Security checks and shit), that's pretty much the opposite of a Ponzi scheme.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 12:17 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
If Madoff functioned for 1000 years it would still be a ponzi scheme. See, the duration of time that it runs has nothing to do with the definition of a ponzi scheme.
Ponzi Scheme = an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risk.
If it helps at first, skip the word ‘swindle’ and the definition perfectly applies to Social Security. And it might have worked OK except for the baby boomers.
Once you get familiar with the program’s unbelievable post baby boomer condition, the disastrous status of medicare, and the phenomenally inadequate lie with an agenda known as nationalized healthcare, ‘swindle’ becomes a very polite term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 27, 2010 12:59 AM in reply to GOP
The reliable estimates are that, if nothing changes, Social Security will pay out at 100% until the late 2030s. It's easy to extend that much further in a number of ways. That's NOT a Ponzi scheme my friend. People get their Social Security checks and they will continue to get them unless conservatives like you somehow manage to scrap the program. When Madoff's clients tried to get their money back, there was none. Social Security has a $2.5 trillion surplus and collects money every year. It's not remotely analogous to a Ponzi scheme.
And conflating Medicare with SS is not on. Medicare is a very serious problem, indeed. Social Security and Medicare are not the same thing and do not have the same future prospects. SS is fine for now and well before it becomes less than fine it will be easy to fix. Medicare is where the real trouble is, but hopefully will get our act together and set up a single-payer health care system eventually.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 7:34 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
If we’re to improve our situation we need to reach consensus on the facts. You agree Medicare is a very serious problem. And likely know nationalized healthcare was a joke in addressing the fiscal problem. Most of your points are wrong if our country reaches a debt limit. Wouldn’t that be one very good reason to ‘conflate Medicare with SS’?
In your opinion, what is a reasonable debt limit for the United States?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 27, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to GOP
Nationalized health care? We don't have that, and if you think we do--i.e. that's what "Obamacare" was--then it's just another way in which you are failing to apprehend reality. We have a patchwork system still largely based on private insurance--not single payer like practically every other industrialized nation.
I don't know what an acceptable debt ceiling is. Professional economists who, unlike you and me, have a deep understanding of the underlying issues don't even agree on that. Our debt is not sustainable in the long run and will need to be brought down, but there are any number of ways to do that beyond gutting Social Security, and increasing the total debt in the last couple of years has unfortunately been necessary given the economy. That's just basic economics. Going forward, ending the two wars we are needlessly prosecuting, cutting military spending pretty severely, and rolling back a lot of the Bush tax cuts will make a significant difference. Some work will have to be done with SS and Medicare/Medicaid as well, but the former is not the main issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ched
August 26, 2010 6:45 PM
Remove the cap. End of story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
August 26, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to ched
Yep.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to ched
Really? Got any facts or a source? What I can find says you’re dead wrong.
GAO publishes SS’s present value unfunded liabilities as $16T, NOT including it’s empty trust fund. The untaxed AGI is around $2.5T which would net $308M from employer and employee. Of course that’s likely extremely optimistic because like Warren Buffet, the vast majority of the rich’s income isn’t from a paycheck. But even so, letting your rabbit run a bit longer, $308M doesn’t even cover the interest on the $16T, let alone deal with it.
Please don’t spout unless its worth the waste of our time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
August 26, 2010 8:50 PM in reply to GOP
Beginning in 2010, make all earnings subject to the payroll tax (but retain the current-law taxable maximum for benefit calculations).
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run103.html
Got any facts yourself?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to dustbunny44
Facts? My original post was rife with them. Did you mean sources? I provided GAO & inferred IRS. Of course there’s also the SS & Medicare trustees reports.
Your charts:
- are based on their ‘intermediate assumptions’ which have for decades yet to be proven anywhere near accurate,
- don’t show this year’s significant red contribution, or that the red years currently start reccurring in way less than their 13 years.
- for the majority of their 75 years, show expenses continuing to increase while income doesn’t,
- don’t indicate general revenue expenditures over their 75 years, which is really the crux of the matter, and otherwise extremely deceiving. As in likely intentionally.
The only way I know for this to get better is when others start figuring out/acknowledging this stuff on their own. You’re to be commended for what you’ve done so far.
What say we work off their other set of numbers. The one’s I provided?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 26, 2010 11:06 PM in reply to GOP
Social Security's present unfunded liabilities amount to $16 trillion? Care to share a link for that information?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 12:24 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Thank-you for being open and showing an interest! Here it is: It's on the chart on the top of printed page 65.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 27, 2010 12:52 AM in reply to GOP
Well, either you cannot read or you are intentionally misrepresenting the data, not sure which. The $16 trillion figure is calculated out to an infinite horizon--it does not remotely relate to unfunded obligations right now as you suggest. Assuming nothing changed, the estimate is that there would be $5.4 trillion in unfunded obligations through 2084. Let me say that again--2084. The additional $11 trillion comes when they project infinitely beyond that point, but the report itself notes that those kind of projections contain "substantial" uncertainty.
$16 trillion is quite a lot of money, but you know what else it says there, right at the bottom of page 64? "The $16.1 trillion infinite horizon open group unfunded obligation amounts to 3.3 percent of taxable payroll or 1.2 percent of GDP." Makes it sound a bit less dramatic, and again this is assuming we make no tweaks as we did in the 1980s (and could easily do again).
Point is, the number you used is based on a calculation out to a time when your great great grandchildren will be dead, and has nothing to do with anything going on right now. Nothing. I don't know if you are willfully fear mongering or if you are just being misled by someone else who is doing the fear mongering, but assuming it's the latter it's quite obvious that these issues go somewhat over your head and you don't know what you are talking about. Thanks for providing the link though, it made it a lot easier to point out how specifically you were wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 7:52 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
GEOFF! Look at the column’s heading and the row’s superscript ‘a’. They both say ‘PRESENT VALUE’. That means the number represents all the future red ink discounted to TODAY, and that it has everything to do with today. Everything.
I appreciate you looking into the numbers. No on else has bothered. Hopefully you will continue to help me work this out?
Regarding the 3.3%/1.2% numbers, I’m hoping you can help me understand how to better interpret them? How does 1.2% of a GDP of $15T, which is $180B, cover a $16.1T present value liability?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 27, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to GOP
This is probably the last time I'll explain this to you because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend what should be fairly simple. "Present value" could be translated as "value in today's dollars." Obviously $16 trillion is not the same today as it was 70 years ago and will not be the same in 2084--that's all they are saying there.
You seem to be willfully ignoring the "infinite horizon" phrase and that pesky 2084 year (you realize that's 70+ years from now, right? And it's not just there for the hell of it, but because we do 75 year projections for Social Security?). Under the table you see the phrases "for the period 2010 through the infinite horizon" and "through 2084." From now, to a date far in the future. That's a future projection, dig? We are talking about what will happen in the decades ahead, not the situation right now in 2010.
This is also why you are confused about the GDP and payroll numbers. Again look at the table which notes we are talking about "future payroll and GDP." Future, not just for this fiscal year or the next one. For example with the infinite horizon, it is NOT talking about 1.2% of GDP for just this year--which is what you are saying--rather it's talking about GDP projected out to the infinite horizon. It would be ridiculous to project out indefinitely as to the obligations to Social Security and then only use one year's worth of GDP to compare it to, and of course that's not what they did. Projecting out "infinitely" we are talking about many hundreds of trillions of dollars in GDP, and $16 trillion is indeed a small percentage of that.
I think that's a pretty clear explanation, and hope you can now see you are simply not reading the chart correctly, and your failure to do so basically undermines your entire argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 12:27 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Actually, forgot to mention, Social Security's present value unfunded liabilities are $18.6 trillion when you add back its $2.5 trillion empty trust fund.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:09 PM in reply to GOP
Your facts are shit, and you are a fucking asshole. Shut up and go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
August 26, 2010 11:56 PM in reply to GOP
Start with these: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html
Trust fund surplus is bigger now than ever. SS is solvent until 2038 or so under the current system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 12:44 AM in reply to Scott in PacNW
To get to the truth, we have to dig a little deeper than their talking points.
The trust fund is empty. Every penny was spent as general revenue, and replaced with ‘special IOUs’. So how ‘big’ the fund is doesn’t matter. Redemption of the IOUs will have to be paid from general revenue, i.e. higher taxes or borrowing.
Social security will take in less THIS year than it spends, and general revenue will have to make up the difference. Assuming some kind of economic recovery, they’re estimating general revenue will be increasingly required starting in a hand-ful of years. Not their 2038 deception.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
August 27, 2010 11:42 AM in reply to GOP
I think Geoff has answered your question better than I could have. :-)
If you take a look at the budget, interest on the debt is a good (and growing) chunk of it. The SS trust fund is a good part of that chunk.
The simple fact is SS is the healthiest part of the budget. Better than balanced in surplus.
The only (& real) reason clowns like Alan Simpson want to smash the SS piggy bank is so Wall Street can get their hands on that $2.5 trillion. Period. End of story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 26, 2010 11:28 PM in reply to GOP
I'm sure this will blow your mind, but the trust fund is not in fact "empty." Social security surpluses of past decades were used to buy government bonds, the same kind of bonds that are bought by corporations and individuals. They are considered a good investment because the American government has always made good on its debts and almost certainly will continue to do so.
When it's necessary, the trust fund will cash in the treasury bills--right now it can get by on the interest--and continue to pay out to Social Security beneficiaries. There is nothing remotely underhanded about this, and if you think there is then you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 12:40 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Geoff, with all due respect, when they redeem the trust fund bonds where will the money come from? Federal General Revenue. i.e. higher taxes or further borrowing. The program's $18.6 trillion unfunded TODAY, which means your portion is 7 times your annual income and social security taxes (both halves), due tomorrow. All the elected officials know this, and thru their silence have lied to us for decades.
And don't forget, Medicare is much worse. $90 trillion unfunded today. And this spring's healthcare legislation is estimated to save $1.2 trillion over 20 years. That's a $1.2T solution to a $90T problem. Yes, another lie.
Please, help me get everybody up to speed on these points?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 27, 2010 1:10 AM in reply to GOP
You're not getting it. T bills have real value. The Social Security Trust Fund has $2.5 trillion in the things. Huge funds have a ton too. So does China. It isn't some accounting fiction or Ponzi scheme as you suggested elsewhere on this page. The only way the money is not real is if the U.S. Treasury says "screw it, we're defaulting on our debts." That ain't gonna happen because the global economy would have a goddamned heart attack (if it does happen we'll have a lot more to worry about than just Social Security and would likely be part of some larger calamity).
Like any government or large financial institution the U.S. government has a lot of debt (too much). It services that debt so it's credit rating, so to speak, is good. Paying out to the trust fund, as will happen and as the government has known would happen for quite some time now, will be one component of servicing that debt. Now overall the debt is clearly a problem, but the fact that the government "owes" the trust fund money over the course of the next few decades does not remotely mean that SS is bankrupt. Saying that the trust fund is "empty" as you do is like saying a guy with no cash in the bank but $500 million in stocks and bonds is broke. Actually it's worse than that, because T bills are a helluva lot safer investment than stocks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 27, 2010 8:22 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Agreed: If the US defaults ‘we'll have a lot more to worry about than just Social Security and would likely be part of some larger calamity’
Geoff. Your analogy of the guy with $500M in bonds is fatally flawed, because the guy didn’t buy the bonds from himself.
The trust fund is supposed to have cash on hand. It doesn’t. What it has is:
If the trust fund had never existed (or is ‘empty’) we would have the same thing:
It’s a pretty obvious point. We paid to build up an asset. They spent it. Now we get to pay for it again.
Can we agree we both get it, and the Social Security trust fund is empty?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
August 27, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to GOP
No, because you are talking nonsense. Treasury Bonds are real money. In the entire history of this country the U.S. has not defaulted on its debt. In fact it's in the constitution that it cannot do so. IF the government defaulted on its debt--and it could just as easily default to China as to the Trust Fund--then yes, the Fund would be broke. But what is your indication that that will happen, other than President Bush seemed to imply he would do so back in 2005?
Here's another point you might be missing. That debt, were it not to be held by the SS Trust Fund, would be held by someone else. The Treasury Bonds were issued by the U.S. government to pay for fiscal outlas. A significant portion of them have been purchased by the Trust Fund. China has about $800 billion. Japan and other countries have a lot as well. If the Trust Fund had not purchased T Bonds then other investors would have. Our debt would still be the same, it's just that we would owe more to China et. al., rather than a good chunk of the debt relating to intragovernmental responsibilities.
Might taxes have to be raised to service our overall debt? Certainly, but that is not Social Security's fault--it's because successive governments have decided to spend trillions of dollars on wars and guns (that's the big category) while SS has run a surplus due to the reforms of the 1980s. The debt would be the same if the Trust Fund consisted solely of 20 dollar bills in a bank vault, and the current Trust Fund is just as real as a bank vault full of Andrew Jacksons so long as the U.S. government does not default, which again has never happened before.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
August 27, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to GOP
I'll repost here what I posted above, which you somehow either didn't, or couldn't respond to.
Others in this thread have proposed solutions involving things like modest stock transaction fees (fractional pennies per share), ending subsidies to industries like Big Oil which are highly profitable and have no need of gimmint subsidy, and on and on. Again, whether those solutions, which involve getting free riders to actually pay a fair share of the government and infrastrucutre that they use and profit from, are implemented, or whether the "problem" will be "solved," once again, on the backs of middle-income and poor wage earners (who will become retirees some day should they be lucky enough to live that long), will determine what kind of society we live in: democracy or oligarchy/plutocracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
August 26, 2010 8:36 PM in reply to ched
Amen.
Except you will still need to watch for wall-streeters trying to steal it.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
August 26, 2010 7:14 PM
He used to be an entertaining figure with his folksy anecdotes. Now he's a pain in the ass. When can this old fart be put on an iceberg and set adrift?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
August 26, 2010 7:35 PM
Who is advising Obama and why is taking their advise? Surely, he is not this out of touch with America?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
August 26, 2010 7:47 PM
Can it really be that nobody here understands what a bipartisan commission is?
The point is to bring both parties together in the hopes of achieving some debt reduction that the Democrats alone can't get through Congress.
In order for there to be even a snowball's chance in hell of success, the commission has to include Republicans who represent their party's views. This means people like Simpson. Obama didn't appoint him because he agrees with his views. He appointed him because otherwise there would be no commission. He also appointed good Democrats, including Andy Stern, to make up the majority of the commission.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 26, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to OhioGuy
Simple deficit reduction: Stop talking about renewing the Bush tax cuts. Then end the wars. Then make the penatagon admit the cold war is over and a lot of the big hardware they like to buy is a waste of taxpayer money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 11:10 PM in reply to condew
Condew, I keep pointing out that all of these are just spitting at a hurricane. And you keep pretending, I don't hear you, I don't hear you, I don't...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 27, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to GOP
The tax cuts and the wars are 2/3 of the deficit, and they are the part that we can actually do something about. Republican filibusters can't make the tax cuts renew, and Obama is commander-in-chief. The rest of the deficit is lost revenues due to the sagging economy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
krcook
August 26, 2010 11:11 PM in reply to condew
Yea, verily!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 27, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to krcook
Aw, you mean I'm not one of the cool kids? I'm crushed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
August 26, 2010 8:06 PM in reply to OhioGuy
And what makes you think the Catfood Commission will come up with a recommendation that at least 14 members agree on? I say that if the Dems on the commission don't buckle, there will be no recommendation. Which will make Obama look how he usually looks: stooopid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to OhioGuy
You're incredibly misinformed:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/08/26/dear-president-obama-time-to-can-the-catfood-commission/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mwfolsom
August 27, 2010 12:25 AM in reply to OhioGuy
Andy Stern will do what Obama wants - don't kid yourself. He's a tool and that's all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarciaJ720
August 26, 2010 7:48 PM
Every single Baby-Boomer should be concerned.
This is a big, huge mistake on Obama's part. I ask the same question, who is advising Obama? Rahm Emanual? Is he trying to destroy Obama?
Between Sherrod's firing and Simpson's non-firing, even I question my loyalty to Obama, as I question his loyalty to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frav
August 26, 2010 7:54 PM
I wonder if Mr Simpson would be willing to put his "tits" where his mouth is?? Multi-millionaire Simpson, and Spouse currently receive monthly Social Security benefits from the same milk cow he believes is out-of-whack. Sounds like a true dyed-in-the-cowhide hypocrite. ..... MR SIMPSON, TEAR DOWN YOUR WALL, OF HYPOCRISY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 26, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to Frav
The trouble with this kind of challenge is that it is trivial for a multi-millionaire to give up a couple thousand per month; not so much for the person who spent their life cash-strapped and only has Social Security to meet the necessities in their old age.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
August 26, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to Frav
Alan Simpson is Grover Norquist in the guise of your folksey, favorite uncle. He has made a life's work of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. He is the Republicans' Republican. Why didn't Obama know this? Is this more of failed bi-partisanship nonsense? That can't happen with only one side playing. He should never have been appointed and should be dumped unceremoniously right now. Fool me once shame on you, etc.,etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
susanthe
August 26, 2010 7:57 PM
Has Obama made any GOOD appointments? All of his staffing and advisor choices have been abysmal.
Obama and I parted company when he named Judd Gregg as his choice for Sec. of Commerce.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 26, 2010 8:12 PM in reply to susanthe
Obama has not replaced Bush's U.S. attourneys. One of them is currently playing a game in Virginia by saying abortion clinics are hospitals, levying requirements on them that would force most of them to close. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, my question is why does that Bush lawyer still have a job? What about deserving Democratic lawyers who aren't being given the opportunity?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
August 26, 2010 8:33 PM in reply to condew
I think you're talking about the elected AG of VA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uggboot
August 26, 2010 8:16 PM
Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the
right jerseys? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar!
Welcome to { http://www.pointingtrade.com/sports-jerseys-c-1552.html } sure you will find
what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation,
product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the
years, has been well received by overseas friends for their
support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.
welcome to :====== http://www.pointingtrade.com ====
f.r.e.e. (s.h.i.p.p.i.n.g)
(c.o.m.p.e.t.i.t.i.v.e) p.r.i.c.e
a.n.y [s.i.z.e] (a.v.a.i.l.a.b.l.e)
[a.c.c.e.p.t] t.h.e {p.a.y.p.a.l}
*
***
*****
*******
*********
***********
*************
***************
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
August 26, 2010 8:35 PM
Thank you for keeping these efforts visible.
Social Security is one of the best-run, most helpful programs ever implemented in the USA.
Millions have only these meager benefits to live on.
Repubs who want to steal it are constantly trying to get the program managed by Wall Street.
And other repubs who hate poor or even average-income people are always trying to abolish or diminish it to - why? Prove that government doesn't work? keep from paying into it themselves?
There is no other government program that is annually reviewed to be sure it is solvent 30 years from now. If the Bush admistration was audited in 2007, the USA would have been found to be insolvent before 2037 (after spending 300 Billion per year on unnecessary wars).
Allen Simpson is a shameless criminal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
msevans
August 26, 2010 9:08 PM
Here's a thought, you nay-sayers. Don't these commissions usually end up achieving nothing - aren't they just a way to put off any action on any given problem. In this case, an excellent idea!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 26, 2010 9:39 PM
Alan Simpson is a jerk. Always was, always will be. Appointments like him constitute a death wish that Obama must have when it comes to promoting a progressive agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ratcityreprobate
August 26, 2010 9:43 PM
Why did Obama appoint Simpson to the cat food commission? Perhaps he is a necrophiliac.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 26, 2010 11:22 PM
Tit's A Big Deal
Yes, they are, misplaced apostrophe notwithstanding. Simpson and his buddies are trying to end Social Security, and fuck over the poor. Plain and simple. Anyone who thinks otherwise should take a look at the composition of the "Catfood Commision," and remember Obama;'s pleddge of bipartisanship:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/08/26/dear-president-obama-time-to-can-the-catfood-commission/
This is one of those things that the left needs to push back on, regardless of Robert Gibbs' feelings being hurt. This one will hurt badly, if this commission's recommendations are approved by Congress, especially one that, come 2011, is no longer majority Democratic.
This is just the opening salvo in the rich fuckers' campaign to end liberalism as we know it in this country, and continue the open spigot of cash to the wealthy and other parasites. The Tea Baggers are already bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and the rest of their Chamber of Commerce cronies. Are we the people going to stand by and let this happen? Then, fuck us all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
August 26, 2010 11:32 PM
If there is one thing that Obama has surely achieved is the ability to bring out the crazies, paranoids and idiots of all political stripes. His ability to turn normally "intelligent" people into blathering idiots is a talent that should be studied, bottled and treasured.
I will walk away from this shameful thread now.
Idiots!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aacme
August 27, 2010 12:31 AM
My grandparents, born in the 19th century, lived to be 84 and 88 respectively.
But enough of Simpson's BS nonarguments. He should go. The entire bipartisan commission should go. A Louisiana republican congressman said yesterday that bibartisanship is impossible, we are fighting for the soul of America, and one side has to be defeated. It couldn't be plainer than that.
It's time Democrats start fighting to win. The Republicans sure are. The $1 million bonus from Fox to Republicans showed who'se working for whom. It's not just politics any more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
August 27, 2010 8:46 AM in reply to aacme
You said: "Its not just politics anymone."
I would submit the following to you:
"War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means." ....Clausewitz
War = Politics. Politics = War.
Our Civil War is not over. It will never be over.
Our Republic is made up of states that are constantly at war with one another and at war with the federal government. Sometimes the war is hot. Sometimes it is cold. But, it is always there.
The only thing keeping the states together and keeping the cold war between them from growing hot is an abstract sense of nationalism.
Some people think the conflict is based on race. Others think the conflict is based on policy. Others think its a Republican or a Democratic Party thing.
But its always been about states rights vs. national authority (i.e. who's in charge). Its started there. And that is where it will eventually end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eggroll
August 27, 2010 1:52 AM
Unlike most people here, I'm on board with Simpson. Just one caveat: if the government is serious about emulating the Swiss, it must commit to staying out of everybody else's beeswax just like Switzerland, which has been neutral since 1515.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Druthers
August 27, 2010 8:02 AM in reply to eggroll
But they had William Tell!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Druthers
August 27, 2010 7:54 AM
What better way to get his dirty work done than by putting the "Grandfather" no one would want to have at the top of the ladder.
Baucus - remember?
Gates
Summers
Geithner
There is nothing like have a very intelligent president!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gg.brown
August 27, 2010 9:50 AM
Another huge mistake by Obama by putting this right-wing lunatic on this commission. You're right. Obama is nothing but a closet Republican. When he runs for re-election in 2012, he will be defeated not because of Republicans but because of Democrats, which constitutes mostly of progressives. We will be there in FULL FORCE !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom
August 27, 2010 12:26 PM
I know, Obama keeps letting down progressives! He should have stood up for a single payer system and against the drug companies! True, he wouldn't have been able to muster enough votes in the house and senate leaving the country with no health care changes at all, but it would have made our progressives souls feel so good and self-righteous!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
August 27, 2010 2:35 PM
Watch Obama squander the biggest leverage he has: He'll renew most of the Bush tax cuts without much comment, then go back to begging on everything else. He's too much of a wimp, or too sold out to make a deal to renew the middle class tax cuts only if he gets something else he needs, like more unemployment benefits and other stimulus spending. So he'll renew the tax cuts without paying for them, then let the Republicans roll him on everything else as "increasing the deficit", and he'll "reluctantly" (yeh, sure) cut Social Security, because he really is a conservadem, and at heart Obama is a Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?