(Thumbnail image: Bloomberg)

BY STEVE SPARKMAN

Federal deficit commission co-chair Alan Simpson caused a stir with comments he made in an e-mail to the head of the National Older Women’s League.

“Simpson was responding to an April article critical of his position on Social Security. Simpson wrote, 'Yes, I’ve made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree ... We’ve reached a point now where it’s like a milk cow with 310 million tits.'” (Fox News)

Critics of Simpson’s comment have called it offensive, sexist or just plain wrong. Fox News' Neil Cavuto defended Simpson, saying some Americans’ dependence on Social Security is unhealthy.

“Simpson has since apologized, but instead of equating Social Security to this (clip of cow’s udders) should he just be equating it to this (clip of smoking baby)? ... Smoking baby, two years old, completely hooked out of his gourd.”

CNN contributor John Avlon goes further, saying criticism of Simpson’s comment is part of an effort to discredit the commission, which may recommend Social Security cuts.

“Alan Simpson committed the sin of using really salty, memorable language so that becomes a soundbite. But if this gets used by folks on the far-left netroots to try to say he should be fired, just like John Boehner was arguing with Geithner the other day, what it really is is an attempt to undercut the integrity of this commission.”

Drew Nannis, Senior Vice President of the AARP, did in fact criticize Simpson’s comments, arguing it is Simpson who is causing the lack of faith in the commission.

“Sen. Simpson's remarks not only cross the line of good judgment, but they undermine the serious work of the commission and give us little confidence the commission can fairly look at important programs such as Social Security.”

And Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo thinks that criticism of Simpson’s comment comes from more than just his choice of words.

“Alan Simpson isn't just any old Social Security commentator, and progressives, say what they will, weren't really reacting to the analogy or the questionable language. They were reacting to Simpson himself, who's spent much of his life looking for ways to fundamentally alter (he would say 'enhance', but most would say 'cut') Social Security.”

Finally, Eric Kingson, professor of social work at Syracuse University, says Simpson’s comments are unfounded, and that the deficit commission shouldn’t be considering cutting Social Security at all.

“Two things need to change in the commission: Mr. Simpson needs to be removed, and Social Security needs to be removed from the discussion about the deficit. Social Security does not contribute a penny, not a penny, to the nation’s long-term deficit debt.” (MSNBC)

So what do you think? Is criticism of Simpson due to his language or to his stance on Social Security? And should the deficit commission be considering changes to Social Security at all?

Get more multi-source political news from Newsy.com