WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), a leading voice in the argument over the future of Social Security, has agreed to debate progressive critics who argue that the program can be reformed and strengthened without reducing future benefits.
The debate challenge was issued by a collection of young people associated with the liberal group Social Security Works, and delivered in a YouTube video provided to HuffPost.
Responding to the challenge, Simpson told HuffPost he wouldn't debate the group if it insisted on characterizing his position as in favor of cuts, but if the conversation was centered on the 75-year solvency of the program, he was willing to do it.
Simpson was the co-chair of the so-called Simpson-Bowles Commission, along with Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles, a former top Democrat with the Clinton administration.
"All they have to do is read the [Bowles-Simpson] report and it tells you exactly what we plan to do with Social Security. It's very clear. If they'll read the report, then I'll talk to them. I want them to read the 67-page report, especially what it says about Social Security and making it solvent for people their age," Simpson said. "But if they want to know how to save the system so that when they're 65 they won't get a check for 25 percent less, yes, I can try to help them."
The young advocates challenging Simpson on Social Security say in the video that they have read the Bowles-Simpson report. (Its section on Social Security is short.)
The report did not receive the required number of votes from commission members to move forward to Congress, though it has been politically resurrected in recent months.
The controversial and plainspoken Simpson said he was worried that the debate was "just gonna be a bunch of emotional claptrap" but emphasized again that he was willing to do it.
Simpson's willingness to debate shouldn't come as a surprise, as the Wyoming Republican rarely shies away from defending his position. In the past, he has engaged HuffPost over the question of life expectancy and its relationship to the funding gap for programs like Social Security.
No date or venue has yet been set for the debate. But if it's anything like Simpson's typical performance, it'll be entertaining, and perhaps enlightening. Look through some of Simpson's history of colorful statements below:
Loading Slideshow
'Cow With 310 Million Tits'
"I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too ... We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits!"
-- Simpson on Social Security
<strong>Source: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/alan_simpson_social_security_n_693277.html" target="_hplink">The Huffington Post</a></strong>
'Blood Sweat And Eyeballs'
"A lot of blood, hair and eyeballs have to lay on the floor before we finish."
-- Simpson on fixing the budget deficit
<strong>Source: <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=1421510966&play=1" target="_hplink">CNBC</a></strong>
'Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg'
"This is a fakery. If they care at all about their children or grandchildren, and sometimes I doubt that -- I think, you know, grandchildren now don't write a thank-you for the Christmas presents, they're walking on their pants with the cap on backwards listening to the enema man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg, and they don't like them!"
-- Simpson on young people and their grandparents
<strong>Source: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/alan-simpson-snoopy-poop-dogg_n_832626.html" target="_hplink">The Huffington Post</a></strong>
'The Lesser People'
"We're trying to take care of the lesser people in society."
-- Simpson on Social Security
<strong>Source: <a href="http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7698698" target="_hplink">Ustream</a></strong>
'Just Let Them Sink'
"We have the ability, and I hope the trust of each other, to adjust and put together a package. And if the American people and the Congress don't like it, then just let them sink."
-- Simpson on the budget deficit
<strong>Source: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591463,00.html" target="_hplink">Fox News</a></strong>
'Picking With The Chickens'
"You'll be picking with the chickens yourself when you're 65."
-- Simpson on Social Security
<strong>Source: <a href="http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7698698" target="_hplink">Ustream</a></strong>
"When I Make A Mistake 'It's A Doozy'"
"Over the last 40 years, I have had my size 15 feet in my mouth a time or two. To quote my old friend and colleague, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, when I make a mistake, 'It's a doozy!'"
-- Simpson on Social Security
<strong>Source: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/alan_simpson_social_security_n_693277.html" target="_hplink">The Huffington Post</a></strong>
'Sparrow Belch'
"We're going to get rid of all earmarks, all waste, fraud and abuse, all foreign aid, Air Force One, all congressional pensions. That's just sparrow belch in the midst of the typhoon. That's about 6, 8, 10 percent of where we are. So, I'm waiting for the politician to get up and say, there's only one way to do this: you dig into the big four, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense. And anybody giving you anything different than that, you want to walk out the door, stick your finger down your throat, and give them the green weenie."
-- Simpson on Social Security
<strong>Source: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/alan_simpson_social_security_n_693277.html" target="_hplink">The Huffington Post</a></strong>
WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), a leading voice in the argument over the future of Social Security, has agreed to debate progressive critics who argue that the program can be reformed...
WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), a leading voice in the argument over the future of Social Security, has agreed to debate progressive critics who argue that the program can be reformed...
Former GOP senator and renowned champion of austerity Alan Simpson has turned to a popular erectile dysfunction pill to craft his latest metaphor on the...
WASHINGTON -- The American people are tired of hearing "bullshit and mush" in the debate over the future of Social Security, former Sen. Alan Simpson...
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) lashed out at members of his party on Sunday, slamming them for their unwillingness to compromise on proposed tax increases....
Former Sen. Alan Simpson is not happy with the California Alliance for Retired Americans. In an April letter full of bad language, the pugnacious Wyoming...
Alan Simpson, the former Republican senator from Wyoming who co-chaired President Barack Obama's debt commission in 2010, took a swipe at one of his most...
JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon on Thursday backed the Simpson-Bowles proposal, which cuts entitlements, other spending and raises taxes to reduce the deficit. Speaking...
As the presidential election builds up steam, the Washington elites in both parties are actively scheming to find ways to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for retired workers. The media have widely reported on efforts to slip through a version of the deficit reduction plan developed by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson. The Washington insiders hope to spring this one on us after the election, when the public will have no say. That is the sort of anti-democratic behavior we expect from elites who naturally want to protect their own interests. For the 99 percent there are much better ways of dealing with whatever deficit problems may arise down the road.
Imagine if Social Security were put on trial. There isn't a judge in the land that would let Alan Simpson, the co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, stay on the jury.
Alan Simpson finally berated his own Republican Party. "I'm damned tired of people who use emotion, fear, guilt and racism to stir up their troops." Welcome to the club, Alan Simpson. Now you know how liberals have felt for the past four years.
"Families need a place to live, and if you strip out the housing component of the net-worth calculation, the median US family has barely any net worth at all. Certainly nothing they can retire on. This of course is why Social Security is so important: with the recent drop in net worth, there’s no realistic chance that the median US family will ever save up enough to live on when they’re no longer earning money."
Mildmannered: "Families need a place to live, and if you strip
Senator Simpson, while Wall Street is robbing us blind, you and Bowles are going around telling people that 401(K) is safe, and the Social Security program should be stopped. Do you really want people to honestly believe you have good intentions and morally want to help average Americans who have financed two wars and have nothing to show for the taxes they have paid except high debt, bankruptcy, lost jobs, and children lost in these wars? What kind of moral leadership has your generation produced that we should believe you now, please tell!
Murray_Pender: Senator Simpson, while Wall Street is robbing us blind, you
Murray, I don't know what he has said about 401K, but the Simpson-Bowles plan does anything but end Social Security. It makes it bigger. It makes the system more progressive. It is the exact same-old, same-old that Washington has done for 70 years. It preserves the present in exchange for a more painful future. It is a foolish plan, but it doesn't end Social Security.
Joe_Economist: Murray, I don't know what he has said about 401K,
Social Security payroll taxes are collected under the authority of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). This proves that Social Security is an insurance, plus it is a contribution.
SisterAnn: Social Security payroll taxes are collected under the authority of
Actually, the Supreme Court held in Helvering v. Davis says that it is a tax. The government in fact argued that it was a tax. Separately, the Supreme Court said in Flemming V Nestor that Social Security is not a contributory insurance plan. The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Benefits are what Congress says that they are. Congress said that Nestor wasn't entitled to benefits - and he got none.
Joe_Economist: Actually, the Supreme Court held in Helvering v. Davis says
I would be happy to debate these people provided that they use actual facts. They would rather use smoke and mirror accounting tricks like the 75 year solvency numbers which include all of the revenue but only a faction of the true costs of the system.
Today SSA says that the system has a 20.5 trillion dollar shortfall, and only an 8.6 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years. Do you seriously think that all of the problems in the system start in year 76. Are you kidding me?
There are no small changes. What they are talking about is changing the program's foundations. The program was never suppose to be a public dole. It was suppose to be self-funding. We are changing the basic tenets of the system from preparing for your future to garden variety welfare.
Joe_Economist: I would be happy to debate these people provided that
Whether or not you agree with Simpson or the young people (or whether you're somewhere in the middle), it's a refreshing exercise in true Democracy to have this dialogue continue. I don't always (perhaps rarely) agree with Senator Simpson, but giving him a chance to explain his viewpoints is terrific.
I'm not yet sure where I stand on the issue, but I do know that some benefit cuts is far preferable to a bankrupt system and not getting any social security. I will keep an open mind when following and listening to this debate -- I just hope that everyone on both sides of the issue will do the same.
TJspeakout: Whether or not you agree with Simpson or the young
Every 'fact' Simpson thinks he knows has been given to him by Pete Peterson and other demonic Social Security haters.
I hope the young liberals will have links to backup their info and facts. They should tell Simpson he needs to do the same and Peterson saying it doesn't make it a fact.
SisterAnn: Every 'fact' Simpson thinks he knows has been given to
Removing the cap simply diverts taxes away from debt control to beef-up Social Security. This is exactly like putting your 401K contribution on your child's credit card.
Joe_Economist: What is your source for that statement? Removing the cap
Alan Simpson is without doubt a curmudgeon. However, though I disagree with nearly everything he believes in, I respect him for being one of the old style Repug'icans who realize how you get things done in our Federal government and Congress. COMPROMISE IS A MUST FOR BOTH SIDES! He is smart enough to realize the new breed of Tea Party conservatives are a recipe for neverending gridlock which will result in the ruin of our great country.
Boomer946: Alan Simpson is without doubt a curmudgeon. However, though I
So the ompromise will bethe rich paying a little more taxes and the middle class losing part of their retirement plan. That is not a compromise. The rich won't lose anything they need, but retirees will lose some of what they need.
The younger worker will end up supporting those like Peterson and Simpson while not being able to retire themselves.
Give the workers higher pay and it will all be ok.
SisterAnn: So the ompromise will bethe rich paying a little more
I am not endorsing the Simpson-Bowles plan. What I am saying is if most Repug'icans at least started discussions with Dems with an honest desire to compromise and realize they have to give up something to get something, then we could likely come up with some alternatives to help us start attacking Social Security funding, Medicare funding, the national debt, unemployment, healthcare, and many other critical issues. Instead what we have now is McConnell, Boehner and Cantor all siding with those in their party who say the only 'compromise' they are interested in is the Dems agreeing to everything the Repug'icans want, which isn't compromise but capitulation.
Boomer946: I am not endorsing the Simpson-Bowles plan. What I am
Didn't Bowles-Simplson report also highlight that tax must be increased and defense spending must be reduced? Let Simpson have a debate on that too with his Republic'CONS' colleagues in the House and Senate who will only say "yes" to Ayatollah Grover Norquist's demands and the war-mongers like Bush and Cheney.
Here is a short list of Bowles-Simpson proposal:
1.$200 billion reduction in discretionary spending with proposed cuts including reducing defense procurement by 15% and closing one third of overseas bases, eliminating earmarks, and cutting the federal work force by 10%.
2.$100 billion in increased tax revenues through various tax reform proposals, such as introducing a 15 cent per gallon gasoline tax and eliminating or restricting a variety of tax deductions such as the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for employer-provided healthcare benefits.
3.Controlling health care costs by maintaining the Medicare cost controls associated with the recent health care reform legislation, in addition to considering a public option and a further increase in the authority of Independent Payment Advisory Board.
4.A reduction in entitlements, including farm subsidies, civilian and military federal pensions and student loan subsidies.
5.Modifications to the Social Security program to raise the payroll tax and the retirement age.
The_Contrary: Didn't Bowles-Simplson report also highlight that tax must be increased
I'll assume you are talking about the 2 trillion that social security has invested in interest bearing government bonds. Soc Sec had to do something with the surpluses they have always had. Would you have preferred they invested them in one of the "too big to fail" banks or the stock market? If they hadn't been put into interest bearing bonds, then people would be complaining about the surpluses not being put to work to gain interest.
So, Soc Security surpluses were put into the safest investment the world has ever know, the US government. No one has ever lost one penny investing in the US government.
When republicans complain that these investments are just worthless IOUs, what they mean is that they just don't want to pay the price of them being cashed in. They want to use the situation as a way to cut social security. These soc sec investments are every bit as valid as the bonds/treasuries owned by China, Japan, Europe etc....
NCMan: I'll assume you are talking about the 2 trillion that
I thought it was 4 trillion but yep thats what im talking about, any idea why they never talk about the full faith and credit when it comes to ss? they never talk about chinas worthless iou's
stevebeast: I thought it was 4 trillion but yep thats what
Since the start of Social Security, the stock market with it ups and all of its downs has outperformed the investment strategy of the Social Security system 50 to 1.
"No one has ever lost one penny investing in the US government." lots of people have lost money on US debt. What you are neglecting to mention is "when held to maturity". My guess is that you are too young to remember the 70s. At 2.5%, you are getting return free risk.
Anyone who invests their entire portfolio in a single asset class that is negatively correlated to a common event like inflation is foolish beyond words.
Joe_Economist: Since the start of Social Security, the stock market with
why must simpson denigrate the proposed debate by worrying that it was "just gonna be a bunch of emotional claptrap"
if someone has an opinion and proposals that are different than his they could be just as valid as his own......there is always more than one way to get from point A to point B and his way isn't necessarily the best way
the my way or the highway approach is what is wrong in congress these days and simpson seems to be of the mind that his proposed solutions are the only solutions worth considering
llyd_wlsh: why must simpson denigrate the proposed debate by worrying that
"why must simpson denigrate the proposed debate by worrying that it was "just gonna be a bunch of emotional claptrap"
Because it is. Both sides engage in deceptive debate. Simpson's plan claims that it ensures the solvency of Social Security for 75 years. The average person has no idea what he is really saying. He uses the 75 year figure to make you think that the problem is solved for a long-time. What he is really doing is hiding the true cost of the system with absurd assumptions.
Joe_Economist: "why must simpson denigrate the proposed debate by worrying that
there is absolutely no reason for a debate. first of all, social security is not in trouble. secondly, the solution to strengthening social security is to tax every dollar earned no matter what and this is the real bone of contention because people who make over $106,000 don't want to pay. isn't that what all the bull is about?
irochfpst: there is absolutely no reason for a debate. first of
First of all, there is no credible research that backs your statement. Whether it is CBO or CRS, they include assumptions like 'taxes don't hurt the economy'. But let's pretend that your statement were true; Are you suggesting that we should divert taxes away from debt control? If we are going to raise taxes, the first dollar should be used to pay down the debt.
Joe_Economist: First of all, there is no credible research that backs
reduction of debt will occur when the economy begins to grow. eliminate the bush tax cuts which are directly responsible for the deficit and stimulate the economy and the debt will diminish. but so many people don't realize that this situation has been intentionally created to allow those who lack a social conscience to lay siege to a to the social fabric of our country to the benefit of the few over the many.
irochfpst: reduction of debt will occur when the economy begins to
Good. Let's have the debate. There's no reason we can't continue to support a social contract that accomplishes the goals of SSI. Unless you're trying to get out of paying your fair share of taxes.
ObamaSupporterPete: Good. Let's have the debate. There's no reason we can't
Let's have the debate here. The Social Security Administration says that the system requires 20.5 (2012) dollars to make the system 'support a social contract blah, blah, blah.' That is roughly 1.5 years of GDP. That is a reason that that we can't fulfill the contract. You just want to support it which means that it will fail at some point.
"Unless you're trying to get out of paying your fair share of taxes. " Are you talking about the 50% of the country who has no tax obligation?
Joe_Economist: Let's have the debate here. The Social Security Administration says
No, I'm not. The roughly 53% who don't pay federal income taxes don't make enough to be taxed. They already pay state and local taxes. If you make over $1 million, you can afford to have your capital gains taxed at more than 12%. I'm saying that to make it solvent, I need to contribute more. I'm willing to do that because I see that there is a benefit that I am providing for someone who has gone before me. It's the social contract. Some of us take it seriously.
ObamaSupporterPete: No, I'm not. The roughly 53% who don't pay federal
Posted: 05/31/2012 10:33 am Updated: 05/31/2012 10:44 am