Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson may have been born a curmudgeon, at least he has the personality traits down pat. Personally, I would never want to debate Senator Simpson unless I had memorized all relevant facts supporting my position. I would never have the courage to debate Senator Simpson, or anyone else for that matter, as Alex Lawson recently did if I didn’t have even a basic understanding of the facts. To his credit, Alex Lawson remained polite and unflappable as Senator Simpson becomes increasingly angry trying to explain Social Security insolvency.
ALAN SIMPSON: We’re really working on solvency… the key is solvency
ALEX LAWSON: What about adequacy? Are you focusing on adequacy as well?
SIMPSON: Where do you come up with all the crap you come up with?
SIMPSON: We’re trying to take care of the lesser people in society and do that in a way without getting into all the flash words you love dig up, like cutting Social Security, which is bullshit. We’re not cutting anything, we’re trying to make it solvent.
SIMPSON: It’ll go broke in the year 2037.
LAWSON: What do you mean by ‘broke’? Do you mean the surplus will go out and then it will only be able to pay 75% of its benefits?
SIMPSON: Just listen, will you listen to me instead of babbling? In the year 2037, instead of getting 100% of your check, you are going to get about 75% of your check. That’s if you touch nothing. If you like that, fine. You’ll be picking with the chickens yourself when you’re 65.
I have to ask, how is is possible that Mr. Lawson isn’t aware that Social Security is going “broke”? What is Mr. Lawson’s definition of “broke”?
LAWSON: But what about the $180 billion in surplus that it brings in every year?
SIMPSON: There is no surplus in there. It’s a bunch of IOUs.
According to Senator Simpson 2.5 TRILLION in IOUS to be exact.
LAWSON: Which is how the system was setup, that the current generation funds the retirees.
SIMPSON: When I was your age there were 16 people paying into the system and 1 taking out and today there are 3 people paying into the system and 1 taking out.
LAWSON: But isn’t that the good news.
SIMPSON: And in 15 years there will be 2 people paying in, what’s good news about that?
LAWSON: Didn’t they plan for that, which is why they’ve been…
SIMPSON: Of course not because they thought … the retirement … they that you would die at 57 and that’s why they set the date at 65. If you can’t get through this stuff, then why do you spread this crap. The thing was setup when the life expectancy was 57 years and that’s why they set 65 as the retirement date. Now the life expectancy is 78, whatever it is, and so we have to adjust that and make it work for the future people like you in the United States.
I understand Mr. Lawson might have been unaware of the decrease from 16:1 to 3-2:1 of workers supporting retirees; however, after Mr. Lawson is informed of this fact, why does he think fewer workers per retirees is good?
LAWSON: Well, it’s actually the government and the citizens, right? The government doesn’t actually own the bonds, it’s the government owing…
SIMPSON: Let me say things in a way so your fans will understand this, so you can go and be a hero. There is not enough in the system by the month to pay in, to pay out what comes in. In other words, there is more going out, than coming in. That happened 3 or 4 weeks ago. So, what do they do? They go to that trust fund and say, ‘We need the IOUs out of it.’ And they say, ‘You can have them, but you have to pay for them.’ So you’re taking a double hit on your own government. Makes no sense. The government goes and says, ‘Hey, here’s that 2.5 trillion IOUs, now we need some money out of that system because we haven’t got enough to pay this month.’ And they say, ‘Great.’ So the government gets a double hit.
Facts are stubborn things and Senator Simpson makes good use of them.
Read the rest and watch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTZ7BN22vtM