iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Alan Simpson Still Confused About Social Security Numbers

Alan Simpson

First Posted: 05/25/11 07:26 PM ET Updated: 07/25/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) demanded cuts in Social Security Wednesday while lashing out at Republican strategist Grover Norquist, the AARP, "the cat food commission cats" and "sharpshooters" at The Huffington Post.

Speaking before a luncheon sponsored by former Wall Street tycoon Pete Peterson's foundation, Simpson, a Republican appointed by President Barack Obama to co-chair a bipartisan commission on the federal debt, accused Norquist of being "a nut" and repeatedly harped on a new, misleading statistic about Social Security.

"The AARP, I mean, come come," Simpson said to an audience of Washington insiders. "If you can't understand that when I was a freshman at the University of Wyoming, there were 17 people paying into the system and one taking out, and today there are three people paying into the system and one taking out -- if you can't understand that it was never set up as a retirement program, it was an income supplement which became a retirement, if you can't understand it was never structured to handle disability insurance, it couldn't exist with that burden on it. If you can't understand it didn't take care of kids at 22 going to college, we can't make it."

Simpson went on to reference a recent interview with Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim, who presented Simpson with evidence that one of the statistics he deployed in his Social Security arguments was misleading.

"Now the great sharpshooters are out there and the cat food commission cats and all those guys using these distorted figures," Simpson told the crowd. "And I always say, look, if you torture statistics long enough, eventually they'll confess."

In truth, Social Security was indeed established as a retirement program.

Lately, Simpson has been fond of claiming that the average life expectancy when Social Security was created was just 63 years of age, much lower than today. But the figure that actually matters for Social Security finances is the life expectancy for people who live to 65, the age at which benefits kick in. That number hasn't changed much since 1940.

In an interview with The Huffington Post following his remarks, Simpson reiterated his attack.

"I was talking about the guy who called me and went through this exercise of sharpshooting," Simpson told HuffPost. "And if he can't understand a couple or three things then there's no help. Forget all the crap he's going through and know that if you -- if 17 people were paying into this system in 1950 and one taking out, today there are three paying in and one taking out. I'd like you to refute that."

The ratio Simpson referred to is grossly misleading. According to the Social Security Administration, in 1950, 16.5 people paid into the program for every beneficiary. But that number was only high because the program's architects realized that there had been a baby boom, and Social Security would need more funding in the future.

By 1975, about three people paid into the program for each beneficiary. That figure did not change when President Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan reformed Social Security in the 1980s, and it has remained constant through today.

In other words, Simpson cited a statistic that serves as evidence of Social Security's shrewd management while claiming the number shows the program has been poorly managed.

"Repeating a false claim over and over again does not make it true," said Frank Clemente of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition over 270 national and state organizations dedicated to protecting Social Security from benefit cuts. "Those who continue to use this canard show they are more interested in tearing down Social Security rather than making it stronger. Social Security has a huge surplus today but a long-range gap in 25 years that can be closed relatively painlessly if the richest two percent of Americans started paying Social Security taxes on all their wages -- like nearly all other Americans do."

Simpson also insisted again to HuffPost that upon Social Security's implementation, "the average age of mortality was 63."

When HuffPost suggested that this statistic was misleading due to the higher childhood mortality rate, Simpson responded, "I know all the stuff [Ryan Grim] goes through. Its like gymnastics! Yes and we've done distributional analysis. Ask him if he knows what that is! Ask the wizard if he knows what distributional analysis is! We did that. And then ask him what we did for the seniors, for the older old and the people who are in poverty. Ask the wizard all that and then get back to me."

He then shouted, "I'm through!" and walked away.

AARP objected to Simpson's comments from the event.

"We once again respectfully disagree with Mr. Simpson's characterization of the work that we have engaged in on behalf of Americans age 50 and older and their families for over 50 years," AARP spokesperson Mary Liz Burns told HuffPost. "Today, there are real threats to the programs that Americans care deeply about, and AARP is working to prevent Congress from making harmful cuts to Social Security and Medicare as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling."

During his remarks, Simpson also criticized anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist for refusing to allow tax increases to close the federal budget deficit. Simpson called Norquist "some guy just wandering around in the swamps," and slammed the no-tax-hike pledge Norquist routinely asks politicians to sign.

"If the American people are in thrall with Grover Norquist, some guy just wandering around in the swamps, taking a pledge from people at a time when America was flush, pushing people like Orrin Hatch off the cliff as if he were a commie," Simpson said. "I mean what kind of a nut is this guy?"

"I think as you get older, reality drifts away at various speeds," Norquist told HuffPost, adding that he'd never been accused of wandering in swamps before. "I'm not quite sure what that means."

Norquist also said he has never had any reason to quarrel with Sen. Orrin Hatch, calling the Utah Republican "a sound advocate of not raising taxes and cutting spending," and noting that Hatch was quoted in a recent Bloomberg profile of Norquist saying "nice things about me."

Norquist said that Simpson has been leaving antagonistic messages on his answering machine since he starting working on Obama's debt commission.

"We have a collection of comments from the random voice messages he's left here ... He started making snotty comments at me since he's been on this commission. I was a critic of the idea of having a commission that's focused on the deficit, instead of on spending ... I think that the government's spending too much. The alternative view is that the deficit is the problem, that the peasants aren't forking up enough of the tax money."

Taxes on average American families, however, are near historic lows and more than 50 percent below Reagan-era levels, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) demanded cuts in Social Security Wednesday while lashing out at Republican strategist Grover Norquist, the AARP, "the cat food commission cats" and "sha...
WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) demanded cuts in Social Security Wednesday while lashing out at Republican strategist Grover Norquist, the AARP, "the cat food commission cats" and "sha...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 897
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (29 total)
04:19 PM on 06/12/2011
Sorry HuffPo, but you didn't do your research on this one. This article states "the figure that actually matters for Social Security finances is the life expectancy for people who live to 65, the age at which benefits kick in. That number hasn't changed much since 1940."

Actually, it's changed a lot! The life expectancy for 65 year-olds has gone from 77 then to 83 now. In other words, from 12 additional years to 18 additional years. You don't think that increasing life expectancy by 50% has changed the game much, guys? The difference is MORE (50%) than what Simpson was implying (25%, exactly half the difference, between overall expectancy numbers of 63 and 77).

Simply put: Simpson did not overestimate the effect the devastating effect of longer life expectancy on the Social Security budget. He UNDERestimated it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mad tn dem
Surrounded by Republicans But Won't Be Silent
07:16 PM on 05/27/2011
I just finished watching "Capitalism, a Love Story," for the 3rd time. I believe it should be required viewing for everyone, at least once a year...I could watch it 3/4 times a year..why? Because it tells the story of how we got to this sad state of affairs in this country. We need to stand together and fight what they're trying to do to us (republicans/wealthy 1%). This is the time, and we have to take our fight to the streets. They can outspend us, but they can't outnumber us..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Burke
Author of Journey Home
09:55 AM on 05/27/2011
This is a great article it covers a lot of ground and following Simpson down the road like a drunk behind the wheel has its insights - good job! This bears repeating:

Social Security has a huge surplus today but a long-range gap in 25 years that can be closed relatively painlessly if the richest two percent of Americans started paying Social Security taxes on all their wages -- like nearly all other Americans do."

Again more welfare for the fabulously rich (it has been and always will be a dirty word)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mad tn dem
Surrounded by Republicans But Won't Be Silent
11:20 AM on 05/27/2011
exactly..fanned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlteSoldier
Micro This....Micro That....
07:03 AM on 05/27/2011
Here is a good summary of the GOP view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20GeY7sQseg
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
OSCPJ
Want it? Work 4 it. No 1 has ever drown in sweat.
07:24 PM on 05/26/2011
This article is based on the following: "Lately, Simpson has been fond of claiming that the average life expectancy when Social Security was created was just 63 years of age, much lower than today. But the figure that actually matters for Social Security finances is the life expectancy for people who live to 65, the age at which benefits kick in. That number hasn't changed much since 1940." Um.............Stop. If the average person died before ever collecting benefits it was a plus for SS. They would never collect bennies. Author's arguement is based on the group that lives past 65. That arguement makes no sense. If everyone is paying in when SS started and few are taking out because the DIE before turning 65 that is GOOD for the health of the program. And now people live longer. That is BAD for the health of the program as more take out. Fail Author!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Acharn
06:33 AM on 05/27/2011
Errrm, no. The reason the AVERAGE life expectancy was so low was because more people died while they were children. I haven't looked it up, but I'll bet if you check the life expectancy in 1940 of people who reach 10 years of age, or maybe 20 years of age, it isn't that much lower than the life expectancy of people who reach age 65. Besides, the number that really matters is how long people are going to be receiving benefits. If someone doesn't reach age 65 then they don't get the benefits and whatever they paid in goes to others. Furthermore, the increase in life expectancy is very much related to income levels. People who have lower lifetime incomes also have lower life expectancy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mad tn dem
Surrounded by Republicans But Won't Be Silent
06:44 AM on 05/27/2011
Well done..your logic was impeccable..fanned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ulalume s Ague
Fighting for the Poe People
04:39 PM on 05/26/2011
MMMM---YYyeeeesssss. Montgomery Burns has spoken.
photo
bigmacha
Truth through research.
03:57 PM on 05/26/2011
Simpson has wholeheartedly embraced senility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mad tn dem
Surrounded by Republicans But Won't Be Silent
06:55 AM on 05/27/2011
That's the very reason I believe that 70 should be the cutoff for serving as congressman, senator or president. Reagan was very much affected by his alzheimer's disease. Nancy had too many astrological readings done, I believe, and made his decisions for him. We have people serving right now that I believe have no business making decision for ANYONE, and should have to pass a competency test immediately. whew, that felt good to get it out of my system!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:54 PM on 05/26/2011
"Simpson also criticized anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist for refusing to allow tax increases to close the federal budget deficit."

For all the "you kids get off my lawn!" antics, ya gotta give Simpson credit for noting the obvious about revenue- something the tea-baggers seem incapable of realizing.
The rich and well-to-do have been getting away with sticking the rest of us with their golden forks for too long.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mad tn dem
Surrounded by Republicans But Won't Be Silent
06:58 AM on 05/27/2011
Another good point (was you kids get off my lawn a clint eastwood reference? If not..still made me think of him..
whochi
Liberals think 2 + 2 = Bush
02:29 PM on 05/26/2011
Writer sounds like a LIFER (Liberal Insisting Feds Enforce Redistribution).

I suppose the writer and his wife are waiting to see if they actually live to retirement age and will then start to invest for it.

Or wait to see if their children actually live to age 18 and get accepted to a college before they start investing for it.

The key to managing the risk in SS is how many people can be expected to reach age 65 and how long can they be expected to live.

To make it simple and leaving out interest accruals, etc., if someone puts $1.00 into SS during their life and reaches 65 in 1933 and then lives 12 years, (and expects to get $1.00 a year in SS), that means that 11 other people paid a total of $11.00 into SS BUT DIED BEFORE COLLECTING IT. THEIR $11, PLUS THE DOLLAR PAID BY THE LUCKY SURVIVOR, GOES TO THE SURVIVOR at $1 per year for 12 years.

The key of course is to make a good faith estimate; i.e., for every 12 people, how many people will make it to 65 and how many will not? Good faith estimates were made in 1933 and going forward (as Simpson noted) but medicines miracles took some of those 11 scheduled to die and kept them above ground after age 65. In fact, some of them are 90 and playing softball, jumping out of planes etc.!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ulalume s Ague
Fighting for the Poe People
04:44 PM on 05/26/2011
Did you come up wiffdat all by yourself? But why would you leave out compounding interest? To make your point seem reasonable? Well-- you lost me after "leaving out interest accruals". Moreover-- you seem to recommend death panels or only allowing rich people to live past a certain age. You should craft a formula squaring age with wealth and draw out the lines when people should expire. Then you might start ranking people according to intelligence and beauty and start a neo-eugenics policy institute and then run for office as a tea-baggin republican.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:24 PM on 05/26/2011
FAVED, already a fan.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mad tn dem
Surrounded by Republicans But Won't Be Silent
07:21 AM on 05/27/2011
Darn good post (trying to keep my language clean)! Whochi has been drinking the kool ade a very long time. When I hear folks blathering this kind of "logic," I can only shake my head. I've heard "conservative christians" chatting like this! Don't they realize they are the antithesis of Jesus's teachings? Apparently not, and it's making me reject all organized religion..guess I'll have to talk to God from home..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patriot86
Compassion is the basis of all morality.
09:23 AM on 05/27/2011
It does not matter...Soical Security is the one anti-poverty program that worked well and we paid into it and we will not tolerate having the age raised either...when employer kick out older workers we need to lower the age not increase it and we need Medicare earlier too...we can take care of our own and let Koch and others take care of themselves for a change without all the GOP goodies flowing their way. We need to get back jobs that Bush shipped overseas as well and raise taxes and do what it takes...I for one will not be essentially mur_dered by the GOP...which is what would happen to an old peson without medicare or social security ....no and no.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dorzic
02:04 PM on 05/26/2011
Alan Simpson, wrong headed then, wrong headed now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Oregonian76
Just a guy from the PacNW
01:58 PM on 05/26/2011
2 fixes for Social Security:

- Get rid of the income cap. Pay SS tax on every dollar earned.
- Establish a sensible income threshold for declining someone SS benefits and ENFORCE it.

A lot of people are getting SS checks that simply do not need it. It's not a savings account, it's a tax. We're all eligible IF WE NEED IT. Getting SS when you get old is not a birthright, it's a way to keep the elderly
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Acharn
06:43 AM on 05/27/2011
This actually wouldn't help. It would cost more to enforce means testing than we are likely to save from it. After all, if someone has made $250,000 a year for forty-five years and paid their social security taxes, how do you assess their need for Social Security old-age benefits? Remove the cap, maybe have a declining benefit for people with larger incomes (I don't really like that idea) and leave the system to work as it does now. The thing is, the shortfall everyone is screaming about may never come to pass. How well do you think you can predict what's going to happen over the next 25 years? We don't even know if the government is going to default on its debt in three months. But I'll tell you this: there's no way a person making less than the median income (and half of all earners do) can save enough to have a reasonably decent retirement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Oregonian76
Just a guy from the PacNW
10:43 AM on 05/27/2011
I'm talking about an ACTIVE income threshold. If someone chooses to continue working past the SS retirement age, then they can't collect if their income is above a certain level.

Though I do think there's a reasonable argument for using net worth as a means test. Remember, SS is a TAX and not every person benefits from every tax they pay. SS is not a birthright (as I said before). We don't guarantee some kind of benefit for people that never have kids whose property taxes are used to fund education.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patriot86
Compassion is the basis of all morality.
09:24 AM on 05/27/2011
I am against means testing ..this would be used to get rid of the program...everyone pays thus everyone collects period...we should raise the income cap however.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Oregonian76
Just a guy from the PacNW
10:44 AM on 05/27/2011
Then I want some kind of repayment for all the services I've never used or been qualified to use. My wife
01:57 PM on 05/26/2011
Alan Simpson seems like an old codger. He is unwilling to accept the fact that is understanding of statistics is wrong. He has made up his mind, and he refuses to listen to anyone else.
itolduso
lateral thinker
01:55 PM on 05/26/2011
What a coward......to stand before a room full of washington insiders
whochi
Liberals think 2 + 2 = Bush
01:48 PM on 05/26/2011
No one budgets for a future risk by WAITING to determine the number of people who make it to the risk (age 65) and start counting from then - you have to estimate the number of people who are going to get to age 65, YEARS before that and start TAXING
02:38 PM on 05/26/2011
I think the point made in the article was that Social Security has been planned. The thing that has not happened and should is to remove the SS cutoff.

After all, Republicans are the ones that say taxes should be fair and the same for everyone.....so, that means removing the SS cutoff so the rich pay the tax on all their earnings. Just by doing that, our futures are safe. (Medicare too)

And yes, we should certainly be cutting spending, but there is no reason to cut SS and Medicare when they are budgeted separately and not contributing to the deficit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mad tn dem
Surrounded by Republicans But Won't Be Silent
01:41 PM on 05/26/2011
I'm gonna try this again..I posted this link a minute ago and can anyone tell me why there's no reply button at the bottom of it?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm