The Alan Simpson video shot by Alex Lawson last week is making the rounds, and waking people up to the realities of what the Catfood Commission is talking about behind closed doors with regard to Social Security. Simpson is the Co-chair of the President’s hand-picked blue ribbon Deficit Commission, one of 14 “fiscal hawks” appointed to the panel of 18, and the magic number for passing anything is — you guessed it — 14.
Dean Baker, Jason Linkins and RJ Eskow write about the importance of the Simpson video in shining a light on what the very non-transparent commission is up to. And as Jonathan Schwartz points out, there’s quite a contrast between the dismissive way Simpson treated Alex and his extreme reverence for Sadaam Hussein.
Holly Yeager, who is the Pete Peterson fellow at CJR, says “Lawson is polite, he knows his stuff, and, most importantly, he’s been virtually alone in trying to cover the commission’s proceedings.”
John M. Berry of the Peterson-funded Fiscal Times says that Simpson’s comments “condescending and derisive–and wildly wrong about important parts of the Social Security system’s past,” and that his comments “undermine the already slim chances of politicians agreeing on a way to put the government on a sustainable long-term budget policy path.”
Too bad that when the Washington Post decided to run yet another of the Fiscal Times’ pieces this weekend, it was to “liberalwash” the commission’s efforts rather than to explore the co-chair’s extreme ignorance about the very program he has long wanted to take an axe to.
The right wing blogosphere, however, is cheering Simpson on, led by Andrew Breitbart.
Don Surbur says “Simpson did such a good job, I was surprised that Firedoglake posted it on You Tube”:
The interviewer is clearly out of his league and his snotty cherry-picked (and often misrepresented) facts are brushed aside by Simpson who remained reasonable throughout.
The clip shows what happens when you are well-versed in the subject and confident about yourself and your position.
So right before a midterm election, the the Repubicans want to announce to likely voters (who tend to be older) that they want to default on the treasury bonds issued to the Social Security trust fund, rather than the Chinese? And that after shoveling billions in taxpayer money into record Wall Street bonuses, the GOP supports “balancing the budget” on the backs of old people?
For the record, I wholeheartedly encourage the Republicans to run with that campaign.