Alan Simpson's Apology: Gracious ... and Not Enough

Ryan Grim reports that Alan Simpson has apologized to Ashley B. Carson of the Older Women's League for sending her an insulting email. Unfortunately, it's not enough. That email didn't just deprecate Ms. Carson's work. It also characterized potential Social Security recipients— that is, everyone in the country—as people who "milk it to the last degree," while comparing the system itself to "a milk cow with 310 million tits."

Simpson is to be commended for writing the note, which is gracious and well-written. But his apology doesn't erase Mr. Simpson's long pattern of hostility toward Social Security - a pattern which reflects his inability to be objective. In addition, his repeated belligerent attacks on his critics show a long-standing temperament problem, and the substance of those attacks shows that he fails to grasp Social Security's true economic condition. As Ryan Grim also reports, the AARP has expressed its concern about his comments. The AARP said that he "insulted" 310 million Americans, that his comments "belittling" Social Security are offensive for several reasons, and that “his comments demonstrate a woeful disconnect from or disinterest in the challenges facing many American families for whom Social Security is literally a lifeline.” That demonstrates that Simpson has lost the credibility needed to head this Commission.

Simpson's removal would also give the Administration an opportunity to review the premise under which the Commission was set up. There's a widespread perception that the Commission was "stacked" with members who are hostile to entitlement spending (although it's disputable whether Social Security can be called an "entitlement") and equally reluctant to raise taxes. But whether or not the President chooses to do that, it's clear that Simpson can no longer be useful in this role.

As I've said before (and I've taken some heat for it), I kinda like Alan Simpson—flaws and all. If he were a relative, I'd be happy to tolerate his behavior. If he were a Hollywood celebrity, his publicists would probably tell him to go into rehab for anger management and all would soon be forgiven. (Americans love redemption stories.) But he's neither of those things. He's been entrusted with making impartial judgments about the economic well-being of 310 million Americans, and then communicating those judgments to the American people in a manner that builds consensus. He's not the right person for that job. His next gracious note should contain his resignation.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future