08/27/2010 04:59 pm ET Updated May 25, 2011

I don't care what Alan Simpson said

I don't mind Alan Simpson's foul mouth. I'm a grown up. I don't care that he refers to me and most Americans as the lesser people. Am I surprised a guy who was bequeathed a Senate seat from his father considers himself above those of us not gifted a Senator's pension? Hell no.

Alan Simpson didn't just label everyone who paid into, collects and relies upon social security a "tit" sucker. He indicted Social Security, one of the most successful government programs this country has ever seen, one which has kept millions of retirees, orphans, disabled and widows out of poverty; as a big stupid, wasteful and abused pile of mothers milk. His disdain for Social Security is visceral- he hates social security more than my 5 year-old hates going to bed. And, just like my 5 year-old hates going to bed so much she can't even consider that she actually needs the sleep, Simpson hates social security so much he can't seem to consider whether it contributes to the deficit or not. There's definitely some sucking going on around here alright and it's coming from Chairman Alan Simpson, who hasn't been doing the job he was hired to do.

Simpson's the Chairman of the debt commission - he's more than three quarters of the way through his work and he's clearly lost sight of his mandate. His commission has been charged with proposing "recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending...". How can you accurately judge Social Security's impact on long term fiscal outlook if you think anyone who participates in the program is a tit sucker who's never had "real work"- and if consider the entire program just a crutch for people like that? If you hate Social Security and its participants that much, how can you possibly accurately and objectively analyze Social Security's impact on anything- never mind offer a rational proposal on whether it should be changed or cut???

Social Security is self supporting, between its Treasury Bills, the interest they earn and payroll taxes, Social Security doesn't contribute a dime to the deficit at least until 2037- and even then only if we decide to make up the 20% benefit reductions by drawing from the Treasury's general fund. Social Security's benefits were deliberately prepaid by payroll tax increases under Reagan back in the '80s- it simply doesn't contribute to the deficit.

You know what spending does actually contribute to the deficit? All of it! Every penny the Government spends, whether it's building bridges or paying Alan Simpson's generous Senate Pension adds to the deficit. Does that mean it should all be cut? Of course not, that's why Simpson's commission was set up - to objectively look at what unnecessarily adds to the deficit and what should be cut.

Would you trust my findings, if, as the debt commission chairman, I showed up, announced that Alan Simpson is a tit sucker and then proposed we should deal with the debt by cutting his pension? I hope not. Which is exactly why Alan Simpson has done such a disservice, not just to those he insulted, but to the entire country. His term is nearly over and by failing to make an objective assessment of what we need to do if we want to cut the deficit, he has tainted the entire process and invalidated the commissions findings before they've even come out.

Sucking Indeed!