Fiscal Commission Co-Chair Alan Simpson made news earlier this year when he called seniors ?lesser people? in a video interview, and now in an angry email he sent yesterday to the executive director of National Older Women’s League, Simpson says Social Security is “like a milk cow with 310 million tits“.Apparently a blog post Ashley Carson wrote last spring entitled “Enough with the Pink Panthers Bit” just caught Simpson?s attention and ire which inspired his email response:

?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?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

Honest work?really? We?d argue that advocating for America?s seniors is pretty honest work.The National Council of Women?s Organizations has written President Obama calling for Simpson?s resignation:

?The facts speak for themselves, but Mr. Simpson suggests that anyone supporting people who most need help and who deserve the benefits they paid for must be dishonest or stupid. Such open contempt goes beyond the pale and cannot be tolerated from someone in such a position of authority.?

Here is another good rap up of the issue in this Huffington Post piece.

We all know the real-life retirement picture for Americans is quite different than theridiculouscaricatureof old catsliving “in gated communities and driv(ing) their Lexus to the Perkins restaurant to get the AARP discount”. This “greedy geezer” myth so frequently proferred by some in Washington, makes for good newspaper copy but of course bears noresemblance to the frightening reality facing millions of seniors who’ve seen their retirement savings decimated, their home values plummet and face new threats of cuts to Social Security through raising the retirement age, means testing or countless other ways.That’s why we were especially glad to find a CNN piece that actually took the time to step outside the confines of Washington deficit-mania to ask a simple question: Why did you take Social Security early?While the answers don’t surprise us because we talk to seniors each and every day…these answers certainly don’t fit the greedy geezer mythology promoted by so-called “deficit hawks” looking for away to pay for years of failed borrow and spend policies that have absolutely nothing to do with Social Security.Here is just a sampling of the comments. We really recommend you read the entire piece:

We’ve been dutifully searching for employment to no avail?We both are in good health and have 80 years of experience between us to offer. Although we each have a pension and some 401(k) funds, we have to start taking Social Security in order to make ends meet. It deeply saddens us to be in this position, but we have no choice. Paul Henderson, 62At age 62, I was laid off from my job? I see no jobs on the horizon for anyone, let alone someone of my age. Still, I’m looking. Elaine Armstrong, 63That was just the beginning as I found myself in the world of age discrimination. Even though I had years of tech work for companies like Sony, Microsoft, etc. I was unable to get work. Then in 2005, my wife’s company decided to shut down her office. It took her 5 years to get a part-time job! Daniel Ryan, 63

In poll after poll, the American people of all ages and political persuasions continue to send Washington a clear message?cutting Social Security in the name of deficit reduction is not ?fiscal responsibility?.Thelatest research survey on investment and deficit reduction was done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner commissioned by the Campaign for America?s Future and Democracy Corps, with support from MoveOn.org; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees, and the Service Employees International Union.They describe their findings this way:?Voters are united on this key point: Social Security and Medicare are off-limits as a way to reduce the deficit. It is the threat to Social Security that leads many voters to prioritize deficit reductions. Voters instead want to see higher taxes on top income earners and big corporations.As Social Security celebrates its 75th anniversary this week in the midst of this troubled economy, voters across the political divide want these programs defended.68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.“These results mirror results of our National Committee Foundation poll conducted earlier this summer in which only 2% of Americans believe Social Security is a major cause of the deficit with 77% opposing any changes in Social Security as part of a deficit reduction plan.Theye also echo what Americans told AARP in another recent poll in which 85 percent of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit; 72 percent “strongly oppose” doing so.It?s clear the Washington Disconnect between working Americans and policy makers on the issue of Social Security couldn?t be larger.