JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 26, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Alan Simpson, the co-chair of the deficit commission, turns out to have written a nasty letter to a critic. Various liberals are predictably seizing on this as a reason to discredit the entire commission.
Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake:
Simpson’s childish outbursts, his clear contempt for those he patronizes as “the lesser people” he says he is trying to protect, and his ignorance about the program he is tasked with “fixing” are but symptoms of a greater problem...President Obama, it is not just Alan Simpson who needs to go. It’s time to shut down the entire commission.
Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:
"Simpson as co-chair, when he obviously has a problem with telling the truth about Social Security, exemplifies the credibility problem for the entire commission..."
From the AARP:
“Sen. Simpson’s most recent departure from reality would be easy to dismiss if not for his position co-leading a Presidential commission that will likely recommend changes to Social Security. Sen. Simpson's remarks not only cross the line of good judgment, but they undermine the serious work of the commission and give us little confidence the commission can fairly look at important programs such as Social Security.”
Obviously, Simpson's personality has nothing at all to do with the worthiness of whatever the commission proposes. Moreover, I happen to think that liberals should be open to Social Security cuts as part of a balanced package of deficit reduction. Whether or not that happens is, to say the least, an open question. But it has nothing to do with Alan Simpson being an ornery guy. We already knew that he was.
8 comments
Social security has nothing to do with the deficit - surprised that Chait would think otherwise. Maybe he should be appointed Simpson's co-chair.
- rayward
August 26, 2010 at 3:32pm
It's really bollocks that social security has anything to do with the deficit. But making it less regressive could definitely help things. The way to futz with social security isn't to cut the benefits, but to increase the inputs. Remove the cap on social security taxes. there's absolutely no good reason for it.
- miceelf
August 26, 2010 at 3:54pm
Okay, I made the typical Krugman comment (above). I know that the "trust fund" is holding $2.5 trillion of US bonds, which at some point have to be repaid in order for the proceeds to be used to pay ss benefits. And its payment of those bonds that Simpson (and Chait, I assume) is referring to. Of course, the Republicans have no intention of repaying those bonds, or at least that's what the minority leader in the Senate has implied. This is going to be a huge fight, because the source for repayment of those bonds typically would be the income tax. And who pays income taxes? That's right, upper income folks. And who pays payroll (social security) taxes? That's right, lower to middle income folks. So now Simpson (and Chait?) think there should be a compromise on who gets to fund payment of those bonds, you know, the ones that were purchased with payroll taxes paid mostly by lower to middle income folks. That doesn't sound like a compromise. More like fraud.
- rayward
August 26, 2010 at 4:46pm
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit and I am the King of Spain.
- liberal reformer
August 26, 2010 at 5:20pm
Balanced for whom? Just let the tax cuts expire. All of them. Problem solved. You obviously couldn't afford them.
- IggyPop
August 26, 2010 at 6:17pm
Au contraire, king of queens.
- rayward
August 26, 2010 at 6:24pm
I will see you one Social Security deficit reduction package and raise you one, queen of Queens.
- liberal reformer
August 26, 2010 at 6:43pm
Someone should find the tape of Alan Greenspan in 1983. It shows how the American worker couldn't have been robbed more than if he was mugged in broad daylight. Greenspan said the over-payment of the regressive payroll taxes would create a trust fund that could be used for years to keep income taxes and interest rates lower. When the fund was in deficit, the rich than would have to pay back the benefit they got all those years in income taxes. Now the bill is due. Surprise, surprise...they don't want to pay it back. Again I keep scratching my head, unless you are uber rich, why would you vote for a party that keeps robbing you? Is it that important that they SAY they like "family values."
- MikeB.
August 26, 2010 at 9:55pm