Next month, people in three Northern California communities will get to see and hear up close former senator Republican Alan Simpson, the man who once referred to Social Security as "a milk cow with 310 million tits," and his trusted sidekick, former White House chief of staff and Morgan Stanley director Democrat, Erskine Bowles.

“Simpson-Bowles” is now a road show. These people never give up.

The duo were appointed by President Obama in February 2010 to co-chair the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and the sponsors of their March 5-8 Bay Area appearances are promising that they will deliver “a candid, bipartisan discourse on what America's leaders must do to confront the largest and most critical economic, social, business and national security threat that the country faces.”

“From taxes and spending to entitlement and Social Security reform, Simpson and Bowles offer an enlightening discussion on solutions for bridging America's deficit, debt and interest gap,” the promoters say.

But, as a leader of the local Gray Panthers put it, the two are coming to rally “the 1% for cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, capping all federal revenues, reducing taxes on the rich and increasing them on us, and taxing comprehensive health insurance.  As more of us lose jobs and housing, and fall into poverty, B&S are using the deficit as a phony excuse to cut our services and safety net.”

The two lecturers are frequently described as responsible for a “deficit-reduction plan put forward by the Simpson-Bowles Commission.”  Actually no such plan ever existed. The commission met sporadically and the plan drawn up by its staff—which, among other things, targeted Social Security and Medicare for sharp cutbacks—failed to get the support of 14 of the 18 commissions as required to guarantee they would be taken up by Congress. Exactly how much support the plan had in the panel is unknown because its members never even took a vote.

Following the commission’s failure, Simpson and Bowles took the advice of their supporters to “go rogue” and issued the draft report in their own name. It was, and is, only the thoughts of two guys.  But the major media took the bait. From then on the country has been treated to endless references to what Richard Hass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, described as “the comprehensive deficit-reduction plan put forward by the Simpson-Bowles Commission.”

Hass surely knows better but then so too should the editors of the usually accurate Financial Times who just this last week took President Obama to task editorially saying he had “oddly ignored the findings of the Simpson-Bowles commission he had appointed.”

Last March, when Simpson and Bowles first went on tour, Teddy Partridge wrote on firedoglake.com, “There was no actual final report approved by the Cat food Commission. The Simpson/Bowles commission failed. Their new roll-out press tour is based on a lie.”

Why the subterfuge? Why the constant references to a non-extant commission report?

Because the specifics of the proposals pushed by Simpson and Bowles are not really all that important. What they represent is a reference point for what is otherwise known of as the “grand bargain.” The essence of the proposals is that there is a trade off involving sharp reductions in programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid in return for changes in tax policy to raise revenue in the face of the federal deficit. Last year, when Congressional Republicans threatened to bring the government to a halt over the routine question of raising the Federal debt limit, Simpson said, “We’ve got guys who will not approve the debt limit extension unless we give ‘em a piece of meat, real meat, off of this package.’ And boy the bloodbath will be extraordinary.”

Last Year, the Financial Times, urged the President “to incorporate a sweeping debt reduction proposals in the ‘State of Union’ address and the White House budget proposal early next year, and begin negotiations with lawmakers on the package.”

On November 11 Washington Post pundit Kevin Huffman took up what he called “the rogue part of the operation.”

“Bowles and Simpson surely released their thoughts because they can't get 14 commissioners to support them and because they certainly can't get either party on board,” he wrote.  “If they feel strongly about the deficit, they should go totally independent, get some private funding, and engage in the 2012 elections. Demand a balanced budget plan from every national candidate. Release an independent report card of what the deficit will look like for each plan (and run TV ads showing, e.g., "Sarah Palin's deficit reduction plan: F.") And in case anyone needs a real wakeup call, play some footsie with Mike Bloomberg if, and when, he gets bored in New York.”

Something like that appears to have been set in motion.

It’s win-win endeavor for Simpson and Bowles. After 1,200 people showed up to hear them in Durham, North Carolina, John Frank wrote in the (Raleigh) News & Observer, “Simpson wants to keep the pressure on Congress as they tour the country giving paid speeches about their deficit plan.”

You can’t buy individual tickets for the Bay Area Simpson Bowles performances and the price of the six lectures in the series averages about $400.

But you’re likely to hear about Simpson Bowles on more than one evening. The other scheduled speakers are such luminaries as Spencer Wells, Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, David Axelrod, Richard Haass and Michelle Rhee (the only woman in the group being also the only person of color).

Back in October New York Times columnist Friedman criticized President Obama for “refusing to embrace Simpson-Bowles as the basis of a Grand Bargain.”

Brooks, another Times pundit, has written that “Last fall, the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission released a bold report on how to avoid an economic catastrophe” and “The failure to seize that moment was one of the Obama administration's gravest errors.” Brooks was at it again chastising the President saying his address to Congress contained “big, like tax reform or entitlement reform” in a column that began with the words: “The Simpson-Bowles report.”

Haas is of the opinion that the Administrations’ failure to embrace Simpson and Bowles’ ideas are “at odds” with his idea of a “Restoration” agenda the goal of which would be “to rebalance the resources devoted to domestic as opposed to international challenges in favor of the former.”

The Simpson Bowles caravansary just might attract special attention around here because of his reference to one of the state’s biggest celebrities. 

“Alan Simpson, co-chairman of President Barack Obama's debt commission, furthered his penchant for colorful commentary Monday when he unleashed a rambling diatribe targeting what he characterized as a generation of disrespectful youth and their confused grandparents,” Nick Wing wrote on the Huffington Post last March. “‘This is a fakery,' the former Wyoming senator said on Fox News, referring to retirement-age Americans expressing fears about having Social Security funds slashed. “If they care at all about their children or grandchildren, and sometimes I doubt that -- I think, you know, grandchildren now don't write a thank-you for the Christmas presents, they're walking on their pants, with the cap on backwards listening to the enema man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg, and they don't like them!’"

On January 25 Josh Gerstein of the Charleston Gazette writing on Politico, complained that the President failed to include “The Simpson-Bowles Commission” in this State of the Union address. “Obama did note that he’d ‘agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings,’ he wrote, “but he didn’t refer to capping domestic spending. He mentioned “reforms” to “rein in the long term costs” of popular programs like Medicare and Social Security.

“That’s all part of the program put forward by the Bipartisan Debt Commission led by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, derided by liberals as the cat food commission. The commission made it into the last two State of the Union speeches. Tuesday, Obama broke the streak.”

“So much for the direct plea of Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) — an Obama critic and Mitt Romney endorser — last weekend, Gerstein continued. “He could finally embrace Simpson-Bowles,” Christie said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “That would surprise the nation if he did it, and I think it would show great leadership if the president was willing to do it.”

In his address last week, President Obama had this to say: “I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

“But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.”

That’s populist sounding but troublingly short on content and details. Clearly this matter is unsettled. “If offering more reforms leads to benefit cuts for these vital programs then seniors programs will once again become a bargaining chip traded in exchange for tax breaks millionaires don't need in the first place,” warns Max Richtman, President/CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. As the Simpson Bowles traveling show makes clear, the grand bargainers are still at work. Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid – three social advances that have kept millions of working people alive an out of dire poverty – remain threatened. Those who would undermine them have chosen to inject their “reform” notions into the 2012 election campaign. Progressives should take note.

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member Carl Bloice is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union. Click here to contact Mr. Bloice.