"In order to strike a budget deal, would you accept Changing the way Social Security benefits are calculated so that benefits increase at a slower rate than they do now or is this something you would find unacceptable?"


60% of all adults oppose (60% to 34%)
57% of registered voters oppose (57% to 36%)
68% of Democratic voters oppose (68% to 26%)
54% of Republican voters oppose (54% to 40%)
56% of Independents oppose (56% to 36%)
65% of liberals oppose (65% to 29%)
57% of moderates oppose (57% to 38%
58% of conservatives oppose (58% to 33%)

“Given the questionable intellectual foundations of the Boskin Commission's findings, the commission's high standing in Washington requires explanation. Both Democrats and Republicans have been keen to see its recommendations adopted, because they provide a potentially uncontroversial way to achieve deficit reduction. Raising taxes is unpopular, and little discretionary government spending is left to be cut. Restating the CPI as a measure of cost-of-living inflation offers an easy way to lower Social Security payments through reduced COLAs and raise tax revenues through reduced exemptions. The hope is that the CPI can be presented as an apolitical and boring technical issue that voters won't notice.

“Revising the CPI would get the Republicans off the hook of deficit reduction, while simultaneously advancing the interests of business. This, however, would occur at the expense of working Americans and the elderly. Revising the CPI would get the Democrats off the same hook, but at the cost of another shameful desertion of the constituencies they claim to represent.”


- - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97apr/econhist.htm

Who Opposes:

60% of all adults
57% of registered voters
68% of Democratic voters
54% of Republican voters
56% of Independents
65% of liberals
57% of moderates
58% of conservatives
102 House Democrats
the House Progressive Caucus
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Keith Ellison
returning Congressman Alan Grayson
the AFL-CIO
the AARP
MoveOn.org
Disabled American Veterans



Who Supports:

the White House
Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi
Democratic "policy shop" Third Way
Third Way founder Jon Cowan, a supporter of Social Security privatization



Who Is on the Sidelines Goading Democrats to Pass & Own It:

You Guessed it

To: Pelosi.Updates@mail.house.gov
Subject: Re: Let's Get Real

Dear Leader Pelosi,

Thanks for your message.

However, I am extremely disappointed in your apparent willingness to accept a $112 billion cut to Social Security beneficiaries disguised as a "technical" CPI/COLA change.

This is an inexcusable betrayal of Democratic principles, and a betrayal to Americans whose decades of payroll and self-employment taxes have funded the $2.7 trillion dollar surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Such a betrayal would be inexcusable even if it were a separate measure pertaining to Social Security alone, because it is unwarranted, and aggravates a calculation that ALREADY UNDERESTIMATES real inflation. Trying to bamboozle Americans by pretending it is simply a "technical" accounting correction is wearing thin, as Americans have seen for themselves that the current CPI underestimates inflation, and that chained CPI is simply a deceitful ruse to slash benefits.

But it is especially shameful to slash Social Security (the most fiscally responsible program in American history) in the context of a deal to partially preserve historically low tax rates for high earners, especially since those historically low income tax rates were made possible by tax cuts simultaneous with multiple wars, and the deficits were financed in large part by the surpluses from the Social Security Trust Fund.

It DOES NOT "STRENGTHEN" Social Security to slash FUNDED benefits so that historically low tax rates to financial elites may be partially preserved.

To the contrary, this simply enables the continued raiding of the payroll tax funded Social Security Trust Fund to subsidize the 1%.

Leader Pelosi, it is essential that your hear the voices of the overwhelming majority of Americans (of both parties, moreover), of the AARP, of MoveOn.org, of the brave members of the House progressive caucus, and REVERSE your apparent willingness to accept "chained CPI" or any other erosion of Social Security benefits.

Social Security is fully funded through 2033, by which time a significant number of baby boomers will no longer be receiving benefits. Solvency beyond 2033 can be best achieved by adjusting the FICA cap.

Accounting deceptions such as "chained CPI" are recognized by Americans as a pathetic attempt to steal their funded benefits for the benefit of those who want to continue historically low tax rates on the wealthy.

Such deception are not only wrong, they are a betrayal of the voters who rejected such an approach in November.

Please make it clear that Social Security cuts (through chained CPI or any other method) are OFF THE TABLE.

Sincerely,









-----Original Message-----
From: Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
Sent: Dec 21, 2012 6:00 PM
Subject: Let's Get Real

Can't see the pictures? Select "Always display images" or view this message in your browser
Pelosi


Let's Get Real
December 21, 2012
Congresswoman Pelosi calls on Congress
to address the fiscal cliff.
Share This Email On:
Twitter Facebook


. . . The message from the American people is loud and clear: we need solutions not stalemates. We must find a bold, balanced and fair agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff, promote growth and create jobs. At the negotiating table, we must not forget the conversation happening at kitchen tables across our country – families are concerned about how to make ends meet, pay their bills, save for retirement and afford to send their kids to college.

There is no better time than this holiday season for Congress to act – now – to pass a $2,000 tax cut for the average American family. Unfortunately, in my opinion, House Republicans continue to support policies that hold the middle class tax break hostage in order to prevent the wealthiest from paying their fair share. In response, I have called on my colleagues to sign a discharge petition to force action on this critical measure. Let’s get real; ther is no time to waste. . . .

. . . .

[link:http://www.beatingbuffett.com/?p=3858|
"How Government Should Cheat on the CPI"]


....Government agencies tell us we’re wrong and that prices have only risen 2 – 3% annually. They love to speak about ‘core inflation’ which excludes food and energy. Please raise your hands if you don’t partake of those items and thus don’t care about their costs.

This week’s Bloomberg Businessweek (Apr. 30 – May 6, 2012 issue) proposes a bipartisan deficit fix they say would produce $300 Billion in combined savings and tax revenues over the next decade. How would they accomplish this? Switch from the current standard CPI calculation – the Bureau of Labor Statistics market basket of 80,000 goods and services weighted to reflect what they claim are consumer spending patterns- to the BLS’s chained CPI.

What is chained CPI? The BLS says that when prices for specific items go up, consumers often substitute lower-cost goods instead of buying their old favorites. While the standard CPI measures the same basket of goods every month the chained CPI would assume steak lovers would trade down to hamburger or Granny Smith apple fans would settle for lower priced oranges should apple prices surge. Bloomberg suggested that consumers might even react to price increases in one item by going to another category altogether. If ‘bacon and eggs’ gets too expensive, why not simply have some cold cereal?

This alternative measure of including price substitutions is literally an apples-to-oranges comparison rather than noting the change in prices of exactly the same goods and services from the month before, as the average person would expect.

The chained CPI would assume that higher absolute prices force people to ratchet down their standard of living rather than pay more to maintain their normal choices. . .

Suppose, over a given time period, prices rise 100%.

And suppose that you, and others, have been purchasing rib eye for $5/lb, and rib-eye rises to $10/lb.

Because of this inflation, you switch from rib-eye to hot dogs, which formerly were $2/lb, but rose to $4/lb.

Now, you might be tempted to assume that the CPI has risen by100%, since that is what individual items rose.

But "chained CPI", by allowing for a "substitution effect", says, in effect, that "Hot dogs are the new rib-eye", and that your meat expense actually went down from $5/lb rib-eye to $4/lb hot dogs, and magically transforms this 100% inflation in actual prices into a government defined 20% "deflation" - - - based not on real-world prices, but on the substituted consumption of inferior products.

(The peddlers of "chained CPI", of course, would prefer that you live in a dreamland and make the false assumption that consumer substitutions will be of superior products in an ever-improving standard of living.)

“Given the questionable intellectual foundations of the Boskin Commission's findings, the commission's high standing in Washington requires explanation. Both Democrats and Republicans have been keen to see its recommendations adopted, because they provide a potentially uncontroversial way to achieve deficit reduction. Raising taxes is unpopular, and little discretionary government spending is left to be cut. Restating the CPI as a measure of cost-of-living inflation offers an easy way to lower Social Security payments through reduced COLAs and raise tax revenues through reduced exemptions. The hope is that the CPI can be presented as an apolitical and boring technical issue that voters won't notice.

“Revising the CPI would get the Republicans off the hook of deficit reduction, while simultaneously advancing the interests of business. This, however, would occur at the expense of working Americans and the elderly. Revising the CPI would get the Democrats off the same hook, but at the cost of another shameful desertion of the constituencies they claim to represent.”


- - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97apr/econhist.htm