iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dean Baker

Dean Baker

Posted: August 25, 2010 05:56 PM

Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, the co-chairman of President Obama's deficit commission, has sparked calls for his resignation after sending an offensive and sexist note to Ashley Carson, the executive director of the Older Women's League. While such calls are reasonable -- Simpson's comments were certainly more offensive than remarks that led to the resignation of other people from the Obama administration -- the Senator's determined ignorance about the basic facts on Social Security is an even more important reason for him to leave his position.

I was also a recipient of one of Simpson's tirades. As was the case with the note he sent to Carson, Simpson attached a presentation prepared for the commission by Social Security's chief actuary. Simpson implied that this presentation had some especially eye-opening information that would lead Carson and me to give up our wrong-headed views on Social Security.

While I opened the presentation with great expectations, I quickly discovered there was nothing in the presentation that would not already be known to anyone familiar with the annual Social Security trustees' report. The presentation showed a program that is currently in solid financial shape, but somewhere in the next three decades will face a shortfall due to an upward redistribution of wage income, increasing life expectancy, and slow growth in the size of the workforce. The projected shortfall is not larger than what the program has faced at prior points in its history, most notably in 1982 when the Greenspan Commission was established to restore the program's solvency.

It was disturbing to see that Simpson seemed surprised by what should have been old hat to anyone familiar with the policy debate on Social Security. After all, he had been a leading participant in these debates in his years in the Senate.

Simpson's public remarks also seem to show very little knowledge of the financial situation of the elderly or near elderly. He has repeatedly made references to retirees driving up to their gated communities in their Lexuses. While this description may apply to Simpson's friends, it applies to very few other retirees, the vast majority of whom rely on Social Security for the bulk of their income. Cutting the benefits of the small group of genuinely affluent elderly would make almost no difference in the finances of the program.

Furthermore, the baby-boom generation that is nearing retirement has seen most of its savings destroyed by the collapse of the housing bubble that both wiped out their housing equity and took a big chunk of the limited money they were able to put aside in their 401(k)s. Simpson shows no understanding of this fact as he prepares to cut benefits for near retirees.

He also doesn't seem to have a clue as to the type of work that most older people are doing. While it is possible for senators to continue in their jobs late in life, nearly half of older workers have jobs that are either physically demanding or require they work in difficult conditions. Simpson seems totally clueless on this point when he considers proposals to raise the retirement age.

The key facts on Social Security are not hard to understand. The shortfall is relatively minor and distant. Most retirees have little income other than their Social Security, and most workers would find it quite difficult to stay at their jobs in their late 60s or even 70. We might have hoped that Senator Simpson understood these facts at the time when he was appointed to the commission, but we should at least expect that he would learn them on the job.

His determined ignorance in the face of the facts is the most important reason why he is not qualified to serve on President Obama's commission. Someone who is co-chairman of such an important group should be able to critically evaluate information, not just insult and demean his critics.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 255
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
11:39 AM on 08/27/2010
Being an FDR-hater has become a generational phenomenon. If you have noticed, the Blind agenda of the right wing is very simple. If it's FDR, it has to go. They never give up. The New Deal was a "wrong turn of history," for these folks, as Milton Friedman once told violent dictator Augusto Pinochet.
12:47 PM on 08/29/2010
But they still believe in Milton Friedman's supply-side economics with religious fervor. The mounting evidence of it's failure over 3 decades is irrelevant to their steadfast religious-like adherence to Trickle Down.
03:35 PM on 08/29/2010
Why is there so much resistence to a complete audit of the Fed?
11:44 PM on 08/26/2010
My problem is that I am an independent thinker who is tired of both parties pretending this isn’t a problem so they can give lip service to their constituents.

First, the money that is put into payroll taxes isn't ours. Once that check is cashed it belongs to the government and it is up to them whether or not the people receive a dime of it. That was decided by the Supreme Court in 1960:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Second, the “garbage I've been fed” comes directly from the CBO statistics. Not the analysis of the statistics, but the statistics themselves. It's called "primary source material."

Third, the national debt is not a partisan issue. Watch IOUSA the movie at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

Finally, the only thing worse than what the Bush administration did to the national debt is what the current administration is doing right now. For every trillion dollars spent, every American citizen takes on another $2,800 each in debt. That includes the 50 babies who were born in the time it took me to type this reply. And remember that only half of our population even pays federal income taxes, so the actual cost to those who pay taxes is much higher. Sales taxes don’t provide federal tax revenues. It took a Democratic president and a Republican congress (who kept shutting down the government until budgets were cut) to create that surplus everyone is so proud of.
11:40 AM on 08/27/2010
You're right, that is a problem for you all right.
03:37 PM on 08/29/2010
Every tax paying citizen should see it as a problem. Are you a free rider?
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
07:15 PM on 08/26/2010
A petition to end this illegal, non elected commission. You can donate too!
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/CanTheCatfoodCommission

Also FDR's Grandson speaks out:
FDR's Grandson Debunks "Mythology of Fear" About Social Security
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/fdrs-grandson-debunks-mythology-fear-about
photo
Sigger
We're all in this together - most understand that
06:48 PM on 08/26/2010
Someone earning $5.00 an hour pays SS taxes on 100% of his wages at 7.65%.

For someone earning $1,000,000, their SS tax base is capped at $106,800, thereby paying SS taxes at the effective rate of less than 1%.

If Social Security taxes were paid on all earned income, the SS tax rate could be decreased for all Americans. But, that is too reasonable - that top 2% needs to pay less so they can up that total ownership of America to more than 53% (with those tax savings).

Alan Simpson apparently has NO understanding of how the majority of Americans live. I think there was an article just the other day that reported that 60% of Americans retiring now, don't have enough money to live on. Maybe, Mr. Simpson should find that article and read it.
03:40 PM on 08/29/2010
Since SS payments have a cap, I gather the theory is collections should be capped as well?
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
06:41 PM on 08/26/2010
I feel a certain gratitude to Simpson, His continued foot-in-mouth comments have blown the lid off the secrecy of this rip-off.
Gads! haven't the American people been ripped off enough? then they INSULT US too!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rtx47
05:51 PM on 08/26/2010
I wish the author, Dean Baker, educated us by giving us the exact dollar figures for the amount an average Social Security recipient contributes to SS (including employer contribution and return on investments); and the amount the individual receives and will receive from SS during their average life expectancy. Then we will exactly know who is whining and ranting.

Or is it that facts do not matter?
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
06:43 PM on 08/26/2010
If you're that curious, why not go try to find that info yourself. to are you too lazy and want your "facts" fed to you?
What do you mean by "average". I'm sure it varies wildly depending on what one has paid into it.
It's not a lot, I can tell you that
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:36 PM on 08/27/2010
If your not interested in helping someone become smarter/more knowledgable, then what was your intent in responding to his post, besides a desire to "hear yourself talk"?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:47 AM on 08/27/2010
Go to the officail SSA website, root around in there. In short, here is how it works.

For evey year you paid SS tax, you get a credit equal to the amount you were taxed on (top 35 years, starting the year AFTER you turn 21). If you made nothing in a year, a zero is entered (even though there are special provisions for those who have a lot of zeros).

When you retire, they "bring forward" every dollar that you received a credit for by using tables that "inflate" prior year earnings to current year dollars. The "inflating" stops at the year you turn 62.

They add it all together, and divide it by 1260 (the number of months in 35 years). This is your Average Idexed Monthly Earnings (AIME). From here a factor is applied to determine the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). PIA equals -

(a) 90 percent of the first $761 of his/her AIME, plus
(b) 32 percent of his/her AIME over $761 and through $4,586, plus
(c) 15 percent of his/her AIME over $4,586.

Once your PIA is determined, then they adjust for the age at which your retiring (early, middle, late, or really late).

Couple points -
1. Payout is HIGHLY progressive.
2. This is straight up retirement, there are NUMEROUS other benefits (survivors, disability, spousal, blah blah, blah).
3. Even if the payout is progressive, every dollar that a person has been taxed on gets credited to the account in the end.
03:43 PM on 08/29/2010
Does your first point factor in any kind of simple or compound return?
03:52 PM on 08/29/2010
Does point #1 take into account any accrued interest (either somple or compound)? if no, shouldn't it, even if miniscule?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drkazmd65
Mom Taught me - Question Everything - Thanks Mom!
05:06 PM on 08/26/2010
Of course Senator Simpson "shows no understanding of this fact as he prepares to cut benefits for near retirees."

He has suckled at the nipple of the Congressional mother most of his adult life, has a snazzy lifelong set of benefits and a pension, and hasn't had to live in reality for years - if he ever had to to begin with.

Anybody 'shocked' by the Fmr. Senator having this viewpoint should be taken out an publically mocked.
03:46 PM on 08/29/2010
It just something in the Washington water - and affects most there.
03:35 PM on 08/26/2010
Contrary to popular belief, SS ran a $121 billion dollar surplus in 2009.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee10-pr.htm
04:23 PM on 08/26/2010
The surplus is based on th efalse premise that interest was paid on the IOU's.
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
06:45 PM on 08/26/2010
Why is it false? Interest is always paid on Treasury bonds. Fox isn't educating you very well, is it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jannsmoor
05:23 PM on 08/26/2010
Thank you Buddy. It's always nice to have some reality injected into the conversation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lerker
03:34 PM on 08/26/2010
they would have stuck alfred e newman on the catfood commission if they thought he would do a better job of cutting social security than chainsaw al. they hired al for his indifference to suffering not his brains.
11:49 PM on 08/26/2010
Watch I.O.U.S.A. and get back to us!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lerker
06:52 AM on 08/27/2010
thanks for the great movie link! didnt disagree with anything in the clip.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
albant
03:24 PM on 08/26/2010
Simpson's view:

From my comfortable desk in a very expensive office I see clear that your problem is "you are too lazy to work until death, so myself and a few like me can drive our Lexuses .
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
albant
03:20 PM on 08/26/2010
"Simpson may be offensive and ignorant but he is Obama's man."

His ignorance goes hand to hand with Obama's.
03:10 PM on 08/26/2010
By all means. Use of the word tit was so offensive that I almost fainted when I heard it. And what could be better in terms of a real bipartisan dialog on deficit reduction than to get rid os someone whose views mean he is unlikely to throw populist bread and candy at the masses who want to be told that social security is just hunky dory and that incessant increases in unfunded government spending for stimulus programs that demonstrably don't work is the way to go?
03:27 PM on 08/26/2010
But it's not unfunded. SS took in more money last year than it sent out in benefits (and has a.9% overhead). Plus, it's given to those who paid into it.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee10-pr.htm
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
doneflyin
my micro-bio isn't
04:05 PM on 08/26/2010
Which is one of the many reasons that the Armani clad boys on Wall Street want to tap into it!
Talk about the Ultimate WS Cash Cow. Trillions delivered to them on a gold platter. Easy money and they won't even have to earn it the hard way.
Sheeesh! Will 'Muricans have to be living under bridges, freezing to dealth on grates and starving before they get it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jannsmoor
05:27 PM on 08/26/2010
We don't mind your being against Social Security. What we do mind is you making up lies about it. I am one of those who has been paying in since the 1970's and I know for a fact the SS Trust Fund has $2.5 Trillion in Treasury Bonds in it because we, the people, paid that amount in excess into the fund. This is not unfunded government spending and it is not populist bread and candy.
Either learn to speak the truth or silence yourself so you can stop being part of the problem.
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
07:17 PM on 08/26/2010
I love you. Have I told you that lately?
11:26 PM on 08/26/2010
Girls and boys - You need to do a little studying up on actuarial science. Social security is not going to run out of money next year (and I am not against it, I can just add). In a world for simpletons, whether social security took in more last year than it paid out would be meaningful (this is a world for people who don't know that adjustable rate mortgages "adjust"). But in a world that recognizes that there are not as many members of future generations as there are of the baby boom generation, and which recognizes that almost no boomers have yet to retire or turn 65, and a world that knows that what you paid into social security has nothing to do with what is there to pay out, it isn't that simple. Social security is premised on the younger paying benefits to the retired older. There are not enough of the young, and it can never work to ever increasing life spans payed the same amount from retirement until actuarial averages for death. You can't pay longer and longer with the same money coming in.

It is a bit depressing to see how little comprehension of economics and mathematics there is on HP. No wonder the Chinese and Koreans are the only ones in Gifted and Talented math.

Next I'm going to have to tell you that smoking is bad for you and not to give you children too many sugary drinks.
photo
Daphydd
Lets play some music
02:45 PM on 08/26/2010
What the administration doesn't seem to realize is that if this commission comes out advocating cuts in benefits, raising the retirement age, and/or privatization, a large swath of voters is going to withdraw its support, suddenly and finally. The polling on this is clear. A huge majority of voters opposes these attacks on SS in the name of deficit reduction, as reported last week in these pages.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
03:05 PM on 08/26/2010
SS is a separately funded program. It is not a part of the Nation budget and has no effect on deficits. The GOP is playing their game of ignorant fear.
04:24 PM on 08/26/2010
since approx 1976 it has been part of the national budget. It has been included in the total budget to hide the deficit
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
offred
A biocitizen is 3/5 of a corporate citizen
02:35 PM on 08/26/2010
"Simpson's public remarks also seem to show very little knowledge of the financial situation of the elderly or near elderly."

Simpson has no real-world knowledge of what most seniors encounter. He's 79, receiving a generous Congressional pension and a deficit commission salary, has Cadillac health insurance coverage, and is no doubt cashing a Social Security check. We won't even go into "good deals" he may have gotten if he's a board member for any for-profit company.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jannsmoor
02:39 PM on 08/26/2010
And he doesn't care about other people. He apparently never got the empathy gene.
I have often suggested that people who believe they owe nothing to the society that gives them health, wealth, and happiness should live somewhere else for a while where the benefits Americans enjoy are not available. Such as Waziristan, or the Congo.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GandenT
03:14 PM on 08/26/2010
Righties seem to think that failing to say "thank you" for, or being grateful for goods, infrastructure, and services they daily recieve makes them "rugged individualists" rather than rude punks. Similarly they imagine they're Lewis and Clarke whenever they leave their gated communities, militia compounds, or what have you and go to visit the nearest Walmart superstore.
04:27 PM on 08/26/2010
the financial situation of the elderly is not a factor in determining the viability of the SS system
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GandenT
05:32 PM on 08/26/2010
The purpose of a program is not a factor in determining it's viability: novel concept. Is it also your theory that our nation itself should be reduced to a math equation or half-baked and fully politicized economics theory? Should we also surrender wars because they are economically inconvenient?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
TXfemmom
Grandma with eye on the future
02:24 PM on 08/26/2010
Simpson is clueless and he is mean. Let's face it, the man is just plain mean. He is making decisions which shall seriously effect the lives of millions of Americans and he has an arbitrary and incorrect view of their lives and situations and doesn't even understand, apparently, things he reads.

He displayed a vulgar, misogynistic and totally irresponsible demanor and thought pattern in his tirade and he should be dismissed if he doesn't have the decency to resign, and let's face it, he doesn't have the decency to do so or he would have already done so.

I shudder when I think that there are individuals such as Simpson, who did suck at the teat of the government and taxpayers for so long, in so much as he received a handsome salary, free travel expenses, gifts of meals and travel from special interest groups, and special care and assistance throughout his career. He became so insulated from life that he does not understand, know, or care to know what the lives of so many Americans are like. He also is DRAWING A HANDSOME SENATE PENSION, several times what Social Security recipients receive, and he MADE NO CONTRIBUTION TO THAT PENSION, unlike the social security beneficiaries who did.

The man also receives social security, undoubtedly, and I am sure he cashes and spends that money.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
offred
A biocitizen is 3/5 of a corporate citizen
02:36 PM on 08/26/2010
Well said!
photo
TexasDem0
USMC Vietnam vet,Veteran for Peace
04:55 PM on 08/26/2010
There are plenty of rich Democrats with a sense of social responsibility, but it seems to be conspicuously absent in all self-obsessed rich Republicans.