Alan Simpson Is a Bully and a Jerk — And He’s Wrong
Alan Simpson gets very, very angry when questioned:
Alan Simpson, the most avuncular-looking Mean Girl in Washington, is back at it again. He fired off a letter to the California Alliance of Retired Americans, months after making an appearance in the Golden State that included a protest by this group. It was clearly eating at his soul so much that he had to “set ‘em straight” on how they should shut up and take the reduction of future Social Security benefits for all Americans with some more dignity and grace:
“Your little flyer entitled “Bowles! Simpson! Stop using the deficit as a phony excuse to gut our Social Security!” is one of the phoniest excuses for a “flyer” I have ever seen. You use the faces of young people, who are the ones who are going to get gutted while you continue to push out your blather and drivel. My suggestion to you — an honest one — read the damn report. The Moment of Truth — 67 pages, and then tell me if we’re not doing the right thing with Social Security. What a wretched group of seniors you must be to use the faces of the very people that we are trying to save, while the “greedy geezers” like you use them as a tool and a front for your nefarious bunch of crap. You must feel some sense of shame for shoveling out this bulls**t. ” (FDL)
Yes, it’s hilarious to see Mr. “Get off my lawn!” screaming at his fellow “geezers”. He’s a jerk. This is not news. After all, he’s best know as the man who referred to Social Security as a “milk cow with 310 million tits” and has called senior citizens the “greediest generation.” And yet, President Obama named him to head up a commission to deal with that milk cow.
Now, Simpson would have us believe that he is attacking these “greedy geezers” so that he can save Social Security for the senior citizens of the future. He will not see young people’s future “gutted”! Not surprisingly, this is demonstrably untrue.
If we take a look at the actual recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson plan, we learn that Simpson is not in any way prepared to ask wealthy earners to pay FICA taxes beyond the level they do today (currently capped at $110,100.) In fact, most of Social Security’s “problem” could be easily fixed with this simple adjustment.)
Instead, what does Simpson propose? The Bowles-Simpson plan would cut Social Security benefits nearly as deeply as those that would be forced by the shortfall in 2033 if we do nothing at all. According to an analysis of the plan, middle-class workers with average earnings over the course of their careers would see a 22% cut in benefits by 2080, not significantly different from the 23.5% cut in benefits these workers would face if we do nothing.
Notwithstanding Simpson’s crocodile tears for young people, under the Bowles-Simpson plan, if someone who is born in 2015 retires at age 65 with a middle-class income in 2080, Social Security will replace only 28 percent of their pre-retirement earnings. By contrast, a 65-year old who retired in 1980 replaced 49 percent of pre-retirement earnings. (EPI)
So much for “saving” Social Security.
The Cassandra Files 
Sorry, but what’s to figure out? Your statement and the conclusion that your drawing might not make sense. HOW MANY MIDDLE CLASS SENIORS WOULD A “MITT” contribution equal if he had to come-up with 12.4 per-cent of income on his investment capital Per year?
Even though we made Simpson Twerp of the Week on our radio show today, I still think he has his moments. I heard him quoted today as saying that Republicans who refuse to compromise have “rocks in their head” or some such thing as that. That’s rare in today’s climate. Gotta give it to him.
Simpson used to be, is, and will be always an ASS!
Social Security is an INSURANCE program; you contribute, you reap the benefits. If it beomes a ‘means-tested’ program it is no longer insurance for all it is welfare for the needy and anytime money gets tight, it gets cut.
Remove the income cap. Social Security is solvent forever.
I don’t know if this would fix things but you raise an interesting point. I wonder what is the origin of the income cap. Why does it exist at all?
I have read that the entire shortfall in projected Social Security funding could be closed by the following single step: raising the minimum wage by $2.00. Maybe some real Democrats should propose that.
By the way, every politician, Republican or Democrat, who makes the claim that social security has anything to do with the budget deficit should be run out of office as soon as possible. We all know this is a lie designed for one purpose only- to make more of the money of the poor and middle class subject to seizure by the rich.
Good points although I do get a kick out of an old geezer telling off other old geezers.
Personally, I’m for means testing. There is no reason on Earth why Warren Buffet should be receiving a dime of social security … and the same can probably be said of Alan Simpson.
Means test all you want, but there simply aren’t enough wealthy individuals receiving benefits to make dent in the shortfall. They may have all the wealth, but their numbers are so small it just doesn’t add up. It’s a red herring & opens the debate up to charges of income distribution instead of social insurance.
I’ve heard that before yet never seen any facts to back it up. I’m guessing you don’t have any, either, or you would have presented it.
If you can’t already figure out on your own that the number of poor & middle-class seniors GREATLY outnumbers the number of wealthy seniors receiving SocSec, then I’m not sure what “facts” you need to convince you.