Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Jane Hamsher: Obama Appointed Deficit Commission Co-Chair Alan Simpson: Social Security Is Like “A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits”

Simpson has written a letter to Ashley Carson of the Older Women’s League (OWL) responding to a piece she wrote on the Huffington Post that is so offensive, sexist and ageist that…well, take it away, Alan Simpson:

   

From: Alan K. Simpson

   Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 6:52 PM

   To: Owl

   Subject: To Ashley Carson re 4/27/10 article

   Ashley B. Carson Executive Director, OWL

   Dear Ms. Carson,

   Someone was good enough to forward me your column of “Enough with the Pink Panthers Bit” of April 27, 2010.

   Some of what you say is true. Much is not – but that’s nothing new about public life for me! I have news for you too, my friend. There may be no group called the Pink Panthers working to protect Social Security but I sure as hell am! I’ve spent many years in public life trying to stabilize that system while people like you babble into the vapors about “disgusting attempts at ageism and sexism” and all the rest of that crap.

   Now hold on tight, because you won’t like what I’m sending you. You may obviously be aware that the Social Security system is “in trouble.” If you don’t agree with that, then there is no need to read any further. But I wish to share with you the presentation by Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration on May 12, 2010 to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. If you think the statistics on poverty for seniors are alarming – then you need to read this little pamphlet to know what is really alarming.

   If we can’t get a handle on this system and make it sustainable and assure long term solvency, and make some changes that are “minor” at the present time and will become “major” as each year passes, then take a look at the chart on Page 6 which I hope you are able to discern if you are any good at reading graphs – or anything that might challenge your biases and prejudices.

   Anyway, have a look at it and if you should choose, you might communicate with me. If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know. And yes, I’ve made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know ’em too. It’s the same with any system in America. We’ve reached a point now where it’s like a milk cow with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!

   Al

snip

Well, they are hitting back.  They’re calling for your resignation from the Catfood Commission.  We’ll certainly be interested to see if the White House cares about the fact that the Commission’s Co-Chair, a former US Senator,  goes out of his way to treat older women is such a patronizing, dismissive and bullying fashion.

Jackass.

Jon Walker: In These Sorry Times, Boehner Owes Geithner and Summers a Big Apology

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has recently called on President Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers. Now I don’t know how Boehner’s mother raised him, but where I come from, that behavior would be considered downright rude. Where is the gratitude? I think John of Orange owes them an apology. Trying to get the two individuals whose actions played a major role in assuring that Boehner will be promoted (to the position of Speaker of the House after Republicans win big this November) fired is just bad manners in my book. If it weren’t for Summers’ terrible economic projections and horrible advice, combined with Geithner’s equally bad counsel, consistently putting the prosperity of Wall Street over main street while horribly mismanaging the HAMP program, Boehner would not be close to measuring the drapes for the Speaker’s office..

Joan Walsh: Mitch McConnell’s tax cut lies

Why does the GOP get away with saying tax cuts for the rich are “existing tax policy”? Or that they create jobs?

I don’t see the Park51 controversy as a mere distraction  from the country’s “real” issues of unemployment and economic trouble. What matters more than our nation’s tradition of religious and political freedom? But it’s clear to me that the “mosque” issue is this August’s version of last August’s “death panels” – another faux-Fox controversy manufactured by divisive right-wingers to keep us from focusing on our country’s serious problems.

What would Republicans do without the “mosque” flap, if they had to vigorously defend, in detail, their economic program? Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was as preposterous as House Minority Leader John Boehner on the same show two weeks ago, blustering about having to account for how much extending the Bush tax cuts for the megarich – set to expire in 2011 — will deepen the deficit. Just as Boehner sputtered and refused to answer repeatedly, then blamed “this Washington game and their funny accounting” for the vexing fact that protecting the megarich will add $3.2 trillion to the deficit, so did McConnell obfuscate. “Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for’?” McConnell asked host David Gregory, calling the tax cuts “existing tax policy.”

Joe Conanson: Harbingers of violence in anti-mosque movement

The top organizer of the Sept. 11 rally against the “ground zero mosque” praises racist thugs in England

One of the chief organizers of the upcoming Sept. 11 “anti-mosque” rally at ground zero has denounced Sunday’s protest, which nearly degenerated into a mob attack  on an African-American carpenter, as “half-assed,” “careless, unprepared, shooting from the hip and harmful to the cause of freedom and compassion” and an “ill-conceived botched mess.”

Pamela Geller furiously rejects any responsibility for the threatening, racially charged tenor of yesterday’s incident. But should anti-Muslim protesters here emulate her thuggish allies in the United Kingdom, nobody should be surprised when disorder and even bloodshed follow.

Ruth Marcus: Boehner’s cheap opposition strategy

There are times when I flirt with the notion that the country would be better off with divided government.

If Republicans took control, say, of the House, there would be pressure on both parties to behave more responsibly. The GOP would be pushed to stop carping and posturing, and start governing. Democrats would have political cover to make hard choices on entitlement spending, taxes and the like. As every politician knows, bipartisan cliff-jumping is a safer sport than going solo.

That’s the theory. Then there’s John Boehner.

The man who would be speaker outlined his agenda Tuesday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland — economic policy reduced to, literally, five easy tweets. The Ohio Republican offered up a depressing blend of tired ideas, tired-er one-liners (“We’ve tried 19 months of government-as-community-organizer”) and cheap attacks. The cheapest: calling for the firing of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers.

Katrina vanden Heuvel: Citizens United aftershocks

What are the consequences of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowing corporations “unlimited spending in pursuit of political ends”? The world of campaign finance is new, confusing — and very alarming.

snip

Passing the Disclose Act — which was recently defeated by yet another Republican filibuster — would be a modest step in the right direction; it requires corporations to show how they spend money in elections. But the deep reforms needed to truly put democracy back in the hands of the people will require a long and tough-minded struggle by all small-d democrats.

In the mean time, corporations are free to do a lot more than just donate to less-regulated 527’s. They have a blank check. As President Obama noted in his most recent weekly address, the Citizens United decision “allows big corporations to . . . buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads — and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street bank. A group can hide behind a phony name like ‘Citizens for a Better Future,’ even if a more accurate name would be ‘Corporations for Weaker Oversight.’ ”

Bill de Blasio, NYC Public Advocate: Voters Can Shed Daylight on Corporate Spending

This has been a tough year for those who care about protecting our democracy from the influence of corporate money. In January the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United gave companies the power to spend freely from their corporate treasuries in our elections. Last month Senate Republicans halted Congressional efforts to mitigate the negative impact of the decision by blocking passage of the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required corporations to show how they  spend money in elections. With Election Day less than 90 days away, we cannot afford to stand on the sidelines — we need to fight back and take on corporations directly.

I have been campaigning against corporate influence in our elections, demanding that individual corporations pledge to not spend money in politics. Last month, our campaign scored a major victory. After weeks of talks with our office, financial powerhouse Goldman Sachs agreed to amend its political contribution policy and not take advantage of the opening created by Citizens United to spend corporate money directly in elections. Building on this success, we launched a campaign demanding that Google live up to its self-professed policy of transparency and join its peers in the technology sector by fully disclosing its political spending. Our office has also developed a website  so that voters and consumers can keep track of corporations that are taking advantage of openings created by the Citizens United ruling to influence elections.