Go Home

Alan Simpson

24 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (632)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1636)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

This had to be one of the more irritating segments I've had the unfortunate circumstance of watching on Morning Joe in a while. First they went about trashing the students protesting tuition fee hikes in London and those silly Socialists in Europe who are all just used to sucking off of the government teet. Then they proceeded to trashing anyone who's dared to speak out against the early report released by the president's Catfood Commission co-chairs Bowles and Simpson.

How dare those reactionaries Nancy Pelosi, Paul Krugman and Richard Trumka speak out against those good reasonable adults who want to raise the retirement age and balance the budget off of the backs of the elderly, the middle class and the poor. The nerve of them!

Update: And just one last word on this panel discussion as an afterthought. Did anyone else feel like they were watching a bunch of high school kids debate policy when it came to their reaction on the protests in London? Yeah Mika, destroying the social safety net and the government's former position that education matters beyond high school if you want to retain a middle class and those students being angry that the government has decided that doesn't matter any more and protesting is just like your brother pulling a stunt where he imitated a cop and got in trouble for it. That's exactly the same thing and just kids being kids who need to be disciplined for their bad behavior. Jebus these people make my head hurt.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (298)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (840)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

As Susie already noted, this release by the co-chairs of President Obama's Catfood Commission that don't look like they have any chance of being approved by the entire panel is nothing but a political ploy designed to warm us up for the "reasonable compromises" we're likely to see proposed next. And the Villagers haven't wasted any time getting started. Here's Gloria Borger and Wolf Blitzer telling us how important it is that this got "the conversation going."

Too bad that "conversation" is a completely dishonest one about what really should be done to take care of our deficit instead of lying about Social Security.

BLITZER: Let's talk about the political realities of this proposal.

We'll bring in our senior political analyst, Gloria Borger -- Gloria, how likely are these proposals going to be to move forward?

It's by no means a done deal.

BORGER: No. And as you pointed out, Wolf, this is a chairman's mark. They wanted to get this out there, to put this on the table. And I think we should give the two chairmen, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, some credit here for putting some really bold, serious ideas on the table.

But it -- but you do need 14 out of 18 members to approve of this in order to get this proposal before the Congress. Given the fact that this has both large spending cuts in it and a change in the tax system, I'm not sure, Wolf, that they can get there. But it's in everyone's interests right now to try and get something before the Congress. So I won't say no. You know, we just don't know at this point.

BLITZER: We're -- we're already, though, hearing loud complaints...

BORGER: Yes.

BLITZER: -- from liberals and from conservatives. I don't think this should be surprising.

BORGER: No, it's not surprising. You know, Wolf, we've been debating these issues for years. They're the same issues. Nancy Pelosi just put out a statement -- I just got it on my BlackBerry -- that called it "simply unacceptable." A lot of the spending caps are going to be unacceptable to Democrats. And the changes in the tax system, particularly eliminating sort of the deductions on mortgage, for example, are going to be unacceptable to Republicans.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (128)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (231)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

David Gergen joined the set of John King USA to praise the "courageous" Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson for their recommendations to balance the budget off of the backs of the elderly, the working class and the poor in the United States. Sorry David but the "grown ups" in this country need to push back against the type of fear mongering we just saw on display here.

KING: David when you listen to a conversation like this, the left and the right essentially saying before the ink is dry, no way, dead on arrival, do you have any confidence at all that even after this election where spending and deficits are a huge concern that the leadership in Washington is prepared to have a grown up conversation about how to deal with it?

GERGEN: John I have hope but not confidence. I think that last conversation where people continue to be dug in in the face of massive deficit this country is running up. A country on the road to bankruptcy and people can't get out of their sandboxes and get serious about this and to say look, we've all got to come together and figure out a constructive solution to this.

You know we'll condemn this country to second class status. You know we're all worried about decline. They will put us there if they do not come to grips with the fact that we've got these huge deficits and to get there what Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, these two chairmen courageously proposed is that we balance the budget at 21% of GDP for taxes and 21% for spending.

That's what we did when Erskine Bowles was Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton and negotiated with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the House as you remember John, when that first major balanced budget was achieved back in the 1990's, it was exactly at 21% spending, 21% taxes and we had three balanced budgets in a row and we had great prosperity and jobs in this country and we're going to have to do both.

Now the fact is we've got deficits over the next ten years of ten trillion dollars... ten trillion dollars. This deficit commission is only proposing that we cut four trillion out of the ten trillion. We're still going to have big deficits but at least it gets us on the road to sanity. And if we can't do four, we are just... count on it. We will be a second class country.

From Paul Krugman -- Unserious People:

OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent. [...]

Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.

Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on.

Update: It’s here. And it really is that bad. The idea that co-chairs of a commission whose charge is fiscal sustainability should take it upon themselves to (a) declare that federal revenue must not exceed 21 percent of GDP — that’s right, putting a cap on receipts and (b) call for reducing the top rate from 35 to 23 is just awesome.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (362)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2221)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Cenk Uygur filling in for Ed Schultz asks the question I'm sure so many of us have as well on President Obama's deficit commission.

Why did we elect a Democrat if we`re going to get a conservative deficit commission that`s going to cut our Social Security?

As Bob Shrum rightly responds, if the Democrats join with Republicans to destroy Social Security, it's going to spell big trouble for the party, and rightfully so. Alan Simpson and the whole commission need to go.

UYGUR: The White House is circling the wagons around former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, the co-chairman of the president`s deficit commission after he went berserk about Social Security.

Simpson likes to talk about the budget in terms of farm animals. In an e-mail to an older voter advocate he wrote that Social Security was like a cow with 310 million -- I think you get the picture.

The White House has responded, quote, "Alan Simpson has apologized and while we regret and do not condone his comments, we accept his apology and he will continue to serve." Catering to loathsome Republicans, the Obama White House at its best.

For Simpson, this week it was a cow. Last month it was a pig. Speaking to a gathering of the nation`s governors in July, Simpson compared the Recovery Act to a pig saying "the pig is dead. There`s no more bacon to bring home."

Get a load of this guy. He thinks you`re milking the system as if it`s his money. You paid into social security. It`s your money. You`re not milking a damn thing and when we try to stimulate our economy or keep teachers on the job, he says the pig is dead. Who killed the pig?

Simpson and his friends in Congress who spent all of your money including the Social Security surplus on tax cuts for the rich and endless wars. Old Simpson had a farm on it he had a bunch of rich Republicans who milked the system dry then told us they killed our pig.

Joining me now is Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. He`s a professor at New York University. Bob, look, this whole talk about how Social Security is going bankrupt, you don`t understand, you guys are milking it dry, doesn`t it have a $2.5 trillion surplus? Isn`t all this one big fat lie?

BOB SHRUM: Yes, it is actually. The truth of the matter is that before Simpson loves to say Social Security goes bust in 2037. That`s not true.

Continue reading »