The progressive case for the chained CPI

[DonViejo]

Since we may have to swallow them, here's the best argument possible for switching to a "chained CPI"

BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD

Liberals are going to have to decide if they’ll stick with the president if the plan he floated this week to cut Social Security benefits by switching to the so-called chained CPI becomes a reality, and it’s not an easy choice. Progressive pressure groups and lawmakers are furious with Obama for proposing the cuts, as I noted yesterday, but House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she’s confident that her caucus would ultimately support the plan if the president asks them too.

The case against moving to the chained CPI is easy to make: It represents a real cut to seniors’ Social Security benefits, which has so far been a non-starter. Even advocates of the switch acknowledge this. But since we may have to swallow it, it’s worth laying out the best progressive argument possible in favor of the chained CPI. We’re not saying it’s right, but it’s a case that should be made.

And the argument does exist. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, one of most well-respected liberal think tanks on policy analysis, has endorsed the change. As has the Center for American Progress, Washington’s most powerful liberal think tank, which recommended the chained CPI in its comprehensive Social Security reform plan.

The key question is this: Do you believe Obama can get a deal without cutting anything from social safety entitlement programs, or is he going to have to do something? If you fall in the former camp, then the chained CPI is dead on arrival. But, if you think we’re going to have to cut entitlements at some point, then the chained CPI is probably the least bad option of a menu of bad possibilities, including raising the Medicare retirement age, which is the most likely alternative and would be far more harmful.

-snip-

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/the_progressive_case_for_the_chained_cpi/

[msongs]

1. so tell us again, who won the election in November? eviden tly, the republicans did nt

[patrice]

7. Acting as though that's all that matters will just set us up for another 2010 in 2014 and I think

the reason for that is that the cohort you are calling upon to do _________________________ (whatever you think that should be) isn't big enough to get it done. All they can do is fracture what could happen.

I think it is possible that whoever it is that you think should be the determining factor here, it's not a big enough of a demographic to succeed, yet, and it's true even if they did succeed in ___________________ and maybe even in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , and .................................. too (whatever I/you/we think those policy initiatives should be) even if that stuff succeeds, if it's not based upon a BROAD enough coalition (if there isn't enough buy-in for as many people as possible), there will still be a critical-mass of opposition/enemies still out there, new policy initiatives will be under attack, that attack will affect the outcomes of those new policy initiatives, destroying very possibly their raison d'etere, and either making them yet another examples of living-dead programs, or killing them outright, so beautiful and true as all of it might be it is quite possible for it to be very short lived.

For however right anyone actually really is, there's always the problem that those who are wrong aren't just going to disappear, die, or go away, to convenience the rest of us (and unlike them, we won't engage in genocide). The opposition endures and that FACT has consequences that are not served well by ignoring them, nor by selling out, nor by denying that buy-in is possible if we honestly and courageously seek it while remaining strong and committed to who/what we and our own values are.

[Indydem]

2. Here's your shit sandwich - AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!

[vi5]

3. The other piece is what we get in return...

The problem is that these negotiations usually wind up with us having to swallow our complaints and concerns while the president and everyone else stands there and watches the Republicans go "One for you.....one, two for us......two for you.....one, two for us....three for you.......one, two, three for us."

If we're going to have to deal with cuts to social security (which this is) then it better damn mean full repeal fo the Bush tax rates for those making over $250K. If we have to swallow him negotiating away social security AND don't get the whole thing on taxes then we will all have a right to be pissed. Especially given all of the cards the Democrats are holding after this election.

[annabanana]

4. These "liberal think tanks" are the reason I get hot under the

collar about the corporate influence in our own party.

Third Way Manny, I suspect, is fully in favor of a chained CPI.

[Sherman A1]

5. NO

There is nothing wrong with SS and we paid for the baby boom with increases during the Reagan Era.

This is complete and total BS.

[Mona]

6. +1 n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Why didn't he just let Mitt win? Does he know he won?

I keep thinking of his bravado standing at the convention "Now-I am the President." I really dislike guys who do the big bluster talk and then don't deliver on it. Oh, well, I am the President! I mean, so what? Why be the President if you can't even keep your word on anything?
Racist, vote surpressing hate mongers. He wants to compromise with them, on those things apparently. What will this 'gun control' compromise look like? Will I now be required to buy guns, in compromise?

[julian09]

9. Maybe if seniors had voted for Obama, he would listen.

[forestpath]

11. I know plenty of seniors including me who voted for him. But it doesn't say much for

President Obama if he plans to seek revenge against old people in this cruel way because he thinks they didn't vote for him.

It's not like he isn't always looking out for the rich bankers and corporatists who didn't vote for him.

[forestpath]

10. What a crock of shit. And I have no doubt the next item on Obama's agenda will be to raise

the Medicare retirement age.

If he says he's not going to do something, that is a dead giveaway he is going to do it.