Glenn Greenwald: In Defense of Alan Simpson, Co-chair of President Obama's Deficit Commission

[Better Believe It]

In defense of Alan Simpson
By Glenn Greenwald
September 4, 2010

.... Commission co-chair Alan Simpson -- with his blunt contempt for Social Security and and other benefit programs (such as aid to disabled veterans) and his acknowledged eagerness to slash them -- has done the country a serious favor. His recent outbursts have unmasked this Commission and shed light on its true character. Unlike his fellow Commission members, who imperiously dismiss public inquiries into what they're doing as though they're annoying and inappropriate, Simpson -- to his genuine credit -- has been aggressively engaging critics, making it impossible to ignore what the Commission is really up to.

Throughout last year, a few lone, progressive voices were sounding the alarm that the core goal of the President's Commission was to enable cuts in Social Security, but the Commission was operating in such stealth, and the idea was so inconceivable that Obama would lead cuts in Social Security, that few believed it. The Democrats' plan was clearly to try to win the midterm election by telling people that the GOP wanted to attack Social Security and the Democrats would protect it, only to turn around once the election was over and then enact the Commission's Social Security reductions. Simpson's comments have changed all that. Now, even the hardest-core Democratic loyalists are objecting to the Party's plan; here is lifelong Party operative Bob Shrum, of all people, blowing the whistle on what the Democrats are trying to do with this Commission:

Saving Social Security -- and Democratic seats
In their desire to dismantle Social Security, Republicans have given Democrats an issue that has been politically potent before -- and can be so again
By Robert Shrum
December 2, 2010

So why not campaign all-out, in O'Neill’s plainspoken way, against a GOP that is disloyal to the most successful -- and most popular -- social program in American history?

Because Democrats have been disarmed by the president's deficit reduction commission, which plainly intends to propose Social Security cuts.

Rather than allow such cuts to be greased through the lame duck session of a decimated Democratic Congress, or passed under cover of "bipartisanship" in a decidedly more Republican one next year, shouldn't the case be stated and debated before the election? (Right now, Social Security is treated as the issue that dare not speak its name.) There is also the question of Democratic identity: What does the party stand for if not Social Security? And then there is the question of Democratic stupidity: Qualified and muted comments by Democrats in effect suggesting that Democrats won't endanger Social Security as much as the other guys will can only further pave the road to defeat.

The president's deficit reduction commission was a response to a series of popular myths -- that the federal deficit is a root cause of our economic distress and that Social Security is a root cause of the deficit. . . . So the deficit commission has targeted Social Security, which has nothing to do with the deficit.

Read the full article at:

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/206740/saving-social-security----and-democratic-seats

But perhaps the most significant result of Simpson's candor is that Obama loyalists and Beltway media voices are now forced to publicly defend Social Security cuts, because Simpson's comments have prematurely dragged out into the open what has been an open secret in Washington but was supposed to be a secret plot for everyone else until the election was over. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait recently decreed, in response to the Simpson controversy, that "liberals should be open to Social Security cuts as part of a balanced package of deficit reduction." And in The Washington Post today, both the Editorial Page and Dana Milbank defend Simpson and call for cuts in Social Security (Milbank even defends cuts in aid to wounded veterans). That Social Security must be cut is not only a bipartisan consensus among the GOP and "centrist" Democratic wing, but at least as much, among the Beltway media establishment.

In the Post today, Milbank justifies the targeting of Social Security recipients and wounded veterans on the ground that nothing should be "sacrosanct" when considering how to solve America's deficit problem. Leaving aside the fact that Social Security is not really a deficit issue, the true causes of America's debt and deficits are absolutely sacrosanct and will never be attacked by this Commission. Does anyone believe it's even remotely possible that meaningful cuts in America's war and military spending, surveillance and intelligence networks, or even corporate-plundering of America's health care system will be enacted as a result of this Commission process? Of course not. Those genuine debt-causing policies are "sacrosanct" because the people who profit from them own and control Washington (and share common socio-economic interests with the millionaire Commission members targeting social programs and the billionaires who are behind this). It's the people who don't control Washington -- ordinary Americans who need Social Security -- who are being targeted in order to feed even further the fattest, most piggish factions actually in control. That's what makes this process so ugly and odious.

Read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[Fumesucker]

1. K&R for the truth..

That Social Security must be cut is not only a bipartisan consensus among the GOP and "centrist" Democratic wing, but at least as much, among the Beltway media establishment.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. ..Milbank is still a reporter????????? I thought he had opened a millinery store in Omaha.

[G_j]

3. LOL!

& K&R for the OP

[glitch]

4. It's true. If this was meant to be a discreet behind the scenes knifing he blew it wide open. KRnt

[flyarm]

5. K&R for truth! keep posting if the unrecer's keep unrec'ing! Eveyone deserves to know this!

and there is a faction here that want the American people ignorant to what is about to come our way!

[G_j]

6. sounds a bit like HCR

:-(

[coti]

13. Well, yeah, it's exactly the same thing.

With the same political dynamic.

Obama's going to do something absurd and the loyalists will deny it or defend it while the people paying attention question their own sanity.

[G_j]

16. commissions w/ narrow preordained missions

how could anyone not feel burned?

[coti]

7. Many DUers aren't even close to admitting that Obama is going to do this.

They haven't gotten very far in the process yet.

[GreenArrow]

22. If and when he does,

there will be a loud contingent on here defending it.

[flyarm]

24. they were put here for tht very reason! and allowed to run roughshot over the majority here with

complete immunity!

We all know who they are!

If the majority would put them all on ignore..their voice will be taken away..and their plans will backfire!

[chimpymustgo]

28. It's 11 dimension chess, doncha know? (Don't believe your lying eyes!!)

[johnaries]

8. Close, but still no cigar.

To those of us who don't harbor "conspiracy theories", it was always pretty obvious what Obama was doing. Long-term deficts are a serious issue that must be dealt with eventually. Better to create an open. bi-partisan commission to bring all issues into the light of day than doing "back-room deals".

Also, make the requirements for recommendations so ridiculous that few, if any, will actually make it to the recommendations. This also means that when the panel makes a reccomendation, they pretty damn well have some good proof behind it.

Plus, when the recommendations come to Congress for a vote - well, then you have the "political" considerations.

The net result is that there is lots of new information for Congress to consider. BUT, it also means that all the old Republican memes are exposed to the light of day and exposed as the false memes that they are.

If you suspect you have a cockroach infestation, then turn on the light and see what scurries away!

Many people here believe that Obama is trying to use the Fiscal Commission to "gut" Social Security. Personally, I think that there are some problems with SS that need to be addressed that Repugs are trying to twist to their advantage. I'd rather have a clear picture of what the problem is, and how to fix it effectively. When you have people muddying the issue, I'd rather give them enough rope to hang themselves so that I can see what the real issues are. Who knows, maybe the other side has one or two points that actually make sense.

[coti]

10. I can't imagine even many Republicans wanting to vote for SS benefit reductions- politically.

But they will, somehow.

Maybe Obama will make another brilliant deal and get the Social Security cuts "in return for" extending the Bush tax cuts!

We'll have the best of both worlds!

[Mimosa]

18. That's the dirty deal I'm suspecting. *shiver* n/t

[Better Believe It]

11. So you think that Social Security needs to be fixed by the commission when it isn't broke.

What do you propose to do that will take care of the alleged "problems with SS that need to be addressed"?

[DJ13]

14. SS is not a budget item that adds to the deficit

This is nothing but a brazen attempt to steal trillions from the workers who have paid into SS so they can avoid paying back the theft thats already occurred.

[Enthusiast]

23. Exactly.

Theft, pure and simple.

[flyarm]

26. don't have to look far into our own party of who is in the pocket of the thieves!

and how hard they are workimg to shut up the majority...even here on DU!

[gratuitous]

9. Ah, the old "their nefarious plot has been exposed" gambit

Puh-leeze. Nobody outside of the policy wankers around here (full disclosure: I count myself as a proud member) is even paying attention to this dumbshow. Simpson could go on national teevee and declare that he is single-handedly ending social security tomorrow, and 90% of folks would wonder who in the hell this old man is, and when are they going to start the next season of Survivor.

When the shit comes down in December during the lame duck session of Congress, people might, just might pay a little attention, but they'll be too preoccupied with Christmas preparations to give a shit. It's only after the deed is done and millions of people are fucked that anyone will be ready to do anything. And then it will be too late.

[Better Believe It]

12. Huh?

" Simpson could go on national teevee and declare that he is single-handedly ending social security tomorrow, and 90% of folks would wonder who in the hell this old man is, and when are they going to start the next season of Survivor."

You're joking .... right?

And tens of millions of people collecting Social Security benefits, tens of millions who are counting on it in the future and all progressive and elderly organizations such as the AFL-CIO and AARP will just sit on their hands and do nothing.

Sure they will.

[gratuitous]

15. Ask three people tomorrow

The first three you meet, or just any random three at preset times (e.g., 10, 2 and 4), and ask them what the commission Alan Simpson chairs is considering (deficit reduction), or what some of the commission's prime considerations are (social security, veterans' benefits). If you get anything other than a blank stare from at least two of them, I'd be greatly surprised.

[Better Believe It]

17. Should I ask " Did you hear that the head of Obama's budget commission announced the

government will be ending social security tomorrow in order to save money?"

You changed the scenario in your response because you understand the uproar and rage that would erupt if your original formulation was used: "Simpson could go on national teevee and declare that he is single-handedly ending social security tomorrow, and 90% of folks would wonder who in the hell this old man is, and when are they going to start the next season of Survivor."

[Mimosa]

19. Unfortunately that scenario is possible.

People have gotten sooo dumb.

[gratuitous]

34. Just the generic questions

Because unlike the original article, which seems to be a "Now these people have shown their true colors!" kind of exposé, I really don't think very many people are paying attention to the Deficit Commission or Alan Simpson. I indulged a little hyperbole about Simpson going on national teevee, but even then I don't think it's that far off the mark to say that such an announcement wouldn't register with a large majority of people.

[flyarm]

27. you are exactly right!! eom

[bvar22]

20. Nobody will be voting to cut Social Security.

Instead, they will be voting FOR a Comprehensive Package of "Reforms" that will SAVE our children from the deficit.

Here is HOW "they" will steak your Social Security:

1) Saturate the Media with the meme that something MUST be done to "Reduce the Deficit" or there will be a catastrophe, and strongly imply that Social Security is one of the BIG causes for the deficit.

2)Remove Pentagon/Military Spending from any discussion of cuts,
and insist that anyone who even talks about cuts to Military Spending are crazy, drug addled extremists.

3)Give all the "Centrist Democrats" plenty of time to get out public statements that they support Social Security, and would never vote to reduce benefits.

4)Form an "Independent Bi-Partisan Commission" that meets in secret to design a "Comprehensive Package" of ways to Reduce the Deficit. This package will be lengthy and complicated, and it WILL contain reductions to Social Security benefits. The package will also contain a few crumbs that ARE good for the economy. These crumbs will be minor in scale compared to the structural changes to Social Security.

The "Commission Recommendations" will also contain some scam that opens the door for Wall Street to have access to Social Security funds. For cover, the package will contain some easily avoidable "regulations" that will appear to restrict how Wall Street can use the Social Security Funds, but these "regulations" are NOT there to actually REGULATE; they are there to provide cover.


5)The Marketing and Message Control will be Up and Running when the contents of the package is revealed. The Media will be saturated with pieces that highlight and overemphasize the few good crumbs, and catastrophizing the effects of not immediately passing "The Comprehensive Package".
(SEE: TARP)


6)The Progressive Caucus opposition WILL be marginalized (again), and the full force of the White House, the DLC, DNC, and their Corporate Marketing & Messaging apparatus will be used to brand any "Democratic" opposition as "traitors", "with the Republicans", "against Wall Street Regulation", "against the American People", "against Saving Social Security" or "Opposed to Saving our Children".
There will be a saturation of anecdotal testimony highlighting how certain crumbs will "Save our Family", therefore the whole package MUST pass.
The Mighty Wurlitzer will be turned UP to FULL BLAST.
Any and ALL opposition from The Left WILL be Shouted Down and Demonized.
(SEE: HCR)

7)The Republican Party will play their assigned part in the Kabuki, and oppose the whole thing as "Big Government " or “Tax & Spend”. It doesn't matter that their position makes no sense. It only matters that they oppose it so the illusion of a difference is maintained.

8)The "Commission Recommendations" will be brought to Congress to be voted on as a "complete comprehensive package", Up or Down vote, during the panic immediately following the Democratic Losses in November 2010.
No honest debate will be allowed.
No discussion of amending the package or deleting some elements will be allowed.
Democrats will NOT be "voting to cut Social Security".
They will be voting FOR "Saving the Economy", or "Protecting our Children (from the deficit)".

9) The Complete Comprehensive Package of Commission Recommendations WILL pass with a Party Line vote, or one or two Republican defectors if necessary to maintain the illusion of a Hard Fight.
No Democrat will have to admit that they voted to Cut Social Security.
Instead, they voted FOR a Reform Package that Saved the Economy.


10) The politicians will flock to the cameras with statements like this:
"I am on record as supporting Social Security, and of course I would have liked to NOT cut benefits, but we had to do something."

"This is "historic" reform legislation, look at all the good (crumbs) we got!"

"We couldn't let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good."

"This is the best we could do under the circumstances because we didn't have the votes.

"This is a Step Forward."

"Today, we saved our children from a crushing deficit."

"We needed to get something done NOW. We will Fix it Later.




Sound familiar?
It should.

If you think I'm a little over the top in my assessment,
take a look at Chris Van Hollen's (weasel, MD) performance when asked a direct question on cutting Social Security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4

Again,
No Democrat will be voting to "Cut Social Security".
They WILL be voting FOR "Comprehensive Historic Reform that Saves our Children."

THAT is WHY this diabolical Commission and "The Comprehensive Package" is so necessary.


They are coming.
"By their works you will know them."

[coti]

21. MUST-READ post.

You've got them DOWN, my friend! You should run for President.

This, no question, is exactly what is GOING to happen.

That is, without pre-emptive, across-the-board, intense public outrage.


Some of the gems in your post:

"7) The Republican Party will play their assigned part in the Kabuki, and oppose the whole thing as "Big Government " or “Tax & Spend”. It doesn't matter that their position makes no sense. It only matters that they oppose it so the illusion of a difference is maintained."

"The Complete Comprehensive Package of Commission Recommendations WILL pass with a Party Line vote, or one or two Republican defectors if necessary to maintain the illusion of a Hard Fight." The Republicans AGAIN get to say they voted AGAINST it, when they're the ones that wanted it!

And, of course, the mandatory:

"This is 'historic' reform legislation, look at all the good (crumbs) we got!"

and

"This is the best we could do under the circumstances because we didn't have the votes."

and

"This is a Step Forward."

and

"We'll fix it later."


Classic!

[another saigon]

29. thanks

hard to believe we have to still break down orwellian speak after winning a democratic majority. It shoulf be clear to all, we are not even on their radar. R's or D's. The ONLY voice they respond to is the Corporate Masters.

[chimpymustgo]

31. Please post as a separate OP. We've seen this sorry movie before!

[G_j]

32. needs it's own OP

vital reading!

[Buns_of_Fire]

25. Other than publications like Mother Jones, has the term "Catfood Commission" started to catch on?

I've read that the members of the commission are rather irked at that title. Good. All the more reason to spread it far and wide.

[another saigon]

30. it has...

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,22881,24538,25900,26446,26515&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=cat+food+commission&cp=6&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=webhp&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=catfoo&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=ab5cdb1806fef4aa

:)

[Buns_of_Fire]

33. True, it has -- I had done that same search earlier...

Unfortunately, most of the cites (no, I didn't go through all 422,000 of them!:-)) were from like-minded sources (along with the Pet Food Instutute and Ralston Purina). I want to see it used so much that even the M$M starts referring to it that way, even if only as an afterthought.

But 422,000 is nothing to be sneezed at. It's a start at pre-emptive dismissal of the recommendations by way of ridicule. Love it.:hi:

[pberq]

35. Excellent! nt

[Radical Activist]

36. But Greenwald recently wrote that the commission didn't talk to the press.

Now he gives credit for Simpson talking to the press. Was he lying then or is he lying now? And why doesn't he mention the meetings both open to the press and broadcast online? He leaves out facts that don't support his narrative.

And why are all of his quotes that "prove" what the commission is really up to from other media pundits engaging in the same speculation? Is it because there's no solid evidence for the speculation?

[izzybeans]

37. Greenwald should go to their website and watch the videos if he's interested in

reporting on their "doings". Other things get said than whatever shit comes out of Simpson's dirty starfish-like mouth. Greenwald's just fishing for hits on his blog. Everyone knows Simpson is a piece of shit.

It feels good to focus on the controversy though. It keeps the pigeons feeding.