Chained CPI would take food out of seniors’ mouths.
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin heard from Iowa seniors about their opposition to chained CPI at a townhall event yesterday. For those who aren’t familiar, the report explains chained CPI as “a less generous way of calculating Social Security cost-of-living increases that assumes seniors will change their buying habits as certain items become more expensive.” The problem, of course, is that Social Security benefits are hardly generous for many seniors and the assumption discounts the notion that they’re already buying the cheapest items they can find.
"Compared with the current model, advocacy group Social Security Works has said that a person who began drawing Social Security at the age of 62 would be receiving 7.32 percent less in benefits per year by the age of 88 under chained CPI,” the report goes on.
Pres. Obama has signalled that he would be open to chained CPI, despite the fact that much of the left is opposed to the idea. Obama originally conceived of it as part of a “grand bargain” with Republicans. He’s since stopped talking about it, but the fact that he hasn’t ruled it out in the future is extremely disturbing.
"I’m sorry to say that the president of my own party has advocated this and he’s wrong," Harkin told seniors at the town hall. "I’m so tired of people saying we’ve got to cut Social Security. I thought, we got to come back and say something, no, you’ve got to increase Social Security."
And then we get the instructive moment:
Many attendees also spoke out against the plan, but one woman, Sheryl Tenicat, became emotional as she begged for Social Security not to be cut.
“I have $624 a month, that’s what I’m living on,” Tenicat explained. “Ninety-nine [dollars] of that goes to Medicare Part D and B. After I get my check, in two weeks, it’s gone. I have nothing. I live with what I eat here. And I just do not want my cost of living cut because I’ve paid in since I was 16 to the government. I’m looking for work in my retirement years so that I can exist. I do own my house, but I don’t know how long that will go because I have property taxes to pay.”
Tenicat added that her car had broken down and she now had to take the bus to the retirement center to receive her free meals.
“There is no way for me to eat less,” she said.
There is no more money in many seniors’ budgets to cut. They can’t decrease spending as costs rise, because they’re already paying rock bottom now.
The fact is that cutting Social Security is a scam to avoid rasing taxes on those that can afford it. Social Security adds nothing to the deficit, so cutting benefits to pay down deficits is actually a transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. If the president agrees to chained CPI, it’ll be a deep betrayal of Democratic values and it will literally put people like Sheryl Tenicat out on the street — the very situation that Social Security was designed to prevent.
The stupidest argument you’ll read today.
Politico: [The Obama budget] centerpiece is a highly controversial plan to trim Social Security cost-of-living increases — a move one longtime Obama adviser called a “goodwill gesture” to Republicans and liberals decry as a shocking departure from Obama’s 2012 campaign rhetoric, a betrayal that warrants retribution.
That liberal anger — boiling to a level not seen since the fractious debate over health care reform — serves a tactical purpose for Obama. Taking a page from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, Obama is courting public confrontation with his party’s powerful liberal wing to prove he’s willing to flout party orthodoxy in hopes of reviving the ever-elusive “grand bargain” to set the country on a sustainable fiscal path.
“We’re not going to have the White House forever, folks. If he doesn’t do this, Paul Ryan is going to do it for us in a few years,” said a longtime Obama aide, referring to the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate who proposed a sweeping overhaul of Medicare that would replace some benefits with vouchers.
Yes, we should rush to hold Republican policy positions because Republicans will eventually take back the White House. By this logic, we should be banning abortion and same-sex marriage, pitching poor families off cliffs, making practicing Islam illegal, instituting the death penalty for undocumented immigrants, and launching an immediate attack on Iran, North Korea and — oh, I don’t know — Canada or someplace. After all, Republicans will just do all this crazy-assed, stupid shit eventually, so it makes absolutely no sense not to go ahead and get it over with now. Let’s just go ahead and privatize Medicare and sell off National Parks, while we’re at it. I mean, it only stands to reason…
I realize that this is just spin. But it’s the most idiotic spin I’ve seen in a good, long time — at least, from a Democrat.
And that it’s so hard to spin tells you all you need to know about how lousy the underlying policy is.
Obama’s Chained CPI Offer is Genuine.
It’s a rare thing these days when right and left agree in Washington, so take a moment to appreciate the bigfoot sighting. Although they both have arrived at this point of agreement for wildly different reasons, the fact remains that they are there, sharing the same space, breathing the same air. This isn’t exactly a moment of blissful brother- and sisterhood, but they are joined together in common purpose — kill the President’s proposed budget.
The right doesn’t like it simply because it’s from Obama. They’d reject renaming Washington “The Ronald Reagan Memorial Gun Refuge” if Obama proposed it. Their opposition is a given. These are not serious or honest people, they’re spoiled children holding their breath until they get exactly what they want. And what they want is a nuclear strike on our recovering economy; no new revenues, only deep, deep cuts to spending — which means hacking off demand at the knees. They’d practically guarantee a second recession. Luckily for us, if they can’t do this then they don’t want to do anything — including pass the president’s budget.
Which is where right meets left. The President’s chained CPI proposal is a smoke-and-mirrors cut to Social Security benefits. And Obama proposes cuts to other entitlements as well. Lefty dems say there are quite enough gaps in the social safety net already, thank you very much. We don’t need to take a scissors to it and start cutting more. Centrist and moderate Democrats, seeing that right and left hate Obama’s budget, are keeping their opinions to themselves — probably wisely.
The question is why would Barack Obama, a Democratic president, attack Social Security — one of his party’s greatest and most lasting achievements — in a budget proposal. What gives?
Some of what I’m seeing is an argument that Obama’s playing poker. He offers what should be a compromise they can live with to the Republicans, only to have them slap his hand away and reject the offer. This, the theory goes, proves that Republicans aren’t serious and will simply oppose anything Obama proposes for the simple fact that Obama proposed it. It’s supposed to be the final act in an episode of Scooby Doo, where Pres. Barack Fred tears the mask off the Phantom Prospector and shows it was just old man Boehner all along. With Republicans revealed as obstructionists, President Obama can turn to the American people and say, “Give me someone else to work with here.”
The problem with this theory is that it relies on an overly complicated plan and some inside baseball. This is the sort of explanation a beltway insider would come up with, because they don’t seem to realize that the average person doesn’t pay much attention to Washington at all. They’re not going to follow this whole roundabout good faith/bad faith stuff, they’ve got better things to do with their lives than stay glued to CNN to watch this whole drama unfold.
No, if you wanted to demonstrate GOP obstructionism, you’d do some polling, find the very most popular things in America, bundle them all up into a “free ice cream” budget, and let Republicans oppose that. Nobody knows what the hell chained CPI is, but they know what increased funding for schools, police, and firefighters is. They’re familiar with a raise in the minimum wage. They’d understand job creation programs. If you wanted to get Republicans on record as opposing something, you’d get them on the record as opposing things like these — not some arcane bit of bookkeeping mumbo-jumbo designed to hide cuts to entitlement benefits.
Barack Obama chose to make chained CPI the opening bid in budget negotiations because he’s cool with it, not because he wants to embarrass Republicans with it. Obama’s budget is exactly what it seems to be: a betrayal of the core Democratic principles of protecting the most vulnerable in America and providing at least some modest guarantee that seniors won’t go hungry when they can no longer work.
When the President formally unveiled his budget proposal, he told reporters, “There’s not a lot of smoke and mirrors in here.” That’s BS. Chained CPI is the very definition of smoke and mirrors. You don’t try to hide a cut when the plan is to bring it out in the open to show up Republicans as obstructionist. This is the President once again beginning negotiations by undercutting his own position — i.e., negotiating with himself and negotiating away protecting entitlements. He’s ready to do this, for real.
Thank goodness this budget is pretty much DOA. It hasn’t exposed Republicans as unserious, but it has exposed Barack Obama as untrustworthy. I’m afraid any other take is wishful thinking. That’s a shame, but that’s a reality. It’s up to congressional Democrats to protect Social Security, because the White House has completely dropped the ball.
[photo by faul]
Stories to Watch: 4/10/13.
A top Republican attacks Pres. Obama’s budget as a “shocking attack on seniors.” And he’s not wrong. Strange how Republicans are suddenly all for an undeniably socialist program, though. Brian Buetler writes that this sort of self-laid trap is something that’s bound to happen when you negotiate with yourself. The chained CPI cut was an attempt by Obama to meet the GOP halfway — before the GOP even made any demands. He’s made this same damned mistake so many times… You’d think he’d have learned it was dumb by now.
It strikes me that Pres. Obama and Paul Ryan share one thing: both have put out budget plans that rely on the fact that they don’t stand a chance in hell of being passed in anything remotely resembling their present forms.
Everything you need to know about the background checks debate.
In trying to win over African-American voters, Sen. Rand Paul claims he never opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is just a damned lie.
Yet another Republican realizes that the sequester is real and that it hurts real people. If there’s any upside to sequestration, it’s in getting Republican after Republican to demand government spending.
Rallies all over the country today in support of comprehensive immigration reform. We’re starting to get an idea what that reform would look like.
Anthony Weiner might be ready to try a comeback. This actually doesn’t seem very farfetched.
OK, now Grover Norquist’s Club for Growth is for chained CPI. That wasn’t the case earlier today. These people need to get their stories straight.
Finally, a man tries to use his firearm to protect himself from government. As so often happens in these cases, he’s dead now.
[photo via McClatchy-Tribune Wire]
Hell freezes over: Grover Norquist to the left of Obama on chained CPI.
Huffington Post: Members of Congress who have pledged never to raise taxes will be breaking their promise if they support changing how the government measures inflation for Social Security and tax purposes.
President Barack Obama unveiled a budget proposal on Wednesday morning that would switch tax brackets and Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, which are indexed for inflation, from the current version of the Consumer Price Index to a “chained CPI,” which says inflation rises more slowly. The change would reduce future benefit increases and push more taxpayers into higher brackets, a phenomenon known as “bracket creep.”
Americans for Tax Reform, the advocacy group that asks lawmakers to sign a formal “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” said Tuesday that chained CPI violates the pledge.
“Chained CPI as a stand-alone measure (that is, not paired with tax relief of equal or greater size) is a tax increase and a Taxpayer Protection Pledge violation,” the group said in a blog post.
OK, so Grover’s not exactly turning all liberal and he’s not really going left. “Chained CPI is a very large tax hike over time,” Norquist tweeted. “Hence Democrat interest in same.”
But the effect is the same. If Norquist didn’t mean to run to Obama’s left, it doesn’t mean he didn’t wind up there regardless. Norquist has lost some influence post-2012, but he still has influence and there are still a lot of Republicans who’ll march to his beat. Once again, we see a conservative bailing out liberals by rejecting Obama’s Social Security sell out.
Keep it up, guys. We’re counting on you to protect Social Security — because we sure as hell can’t count on the White House.
I am terribly disappointed and will do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients through a chained consumer price index.
President Obama’s plan to cut Social Security would harm seniors who worked hard all their lives. Under this plan, a typical 80-year-old woman would lose the equivalent of three months worth of food every year. That’s unconscionable.
It’s even more outrageous given that Republicans in Congress aren’t even asking for this Social Security cut. This time, the drive to cut Social Security is being led by President Obama and Democrats.
Millions of MoveOn members did not work night and day to put President Obama into office so that he could propose policies that would hurt some of our most vulnerable people. Just as we fought and defeated President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security, we will mobilize and stop this attempt to diminish the vital guarantee of Social Security. MoveOn’s 8 million members will not stand by and watch a Democratic President chip away at one of the most successful government programs of all time. Every member of Congress — Democrat or Republican — who votes for this proposal should expect to be held accountable.
The Senate just last month went on record in opposition to the president’s approach. In poll after poll, the American people are overwhelmingly against cutting Social Security. And organizations representing a broad spectrum of millions of Americans from the AFL-CIO to the American Legion to AARP to NOW have urged the president not to make this terrible mistake.
Boehner’s dickishness pays off for liberals.
House Speaker John Boehner immediately dismissed President Barack Obama’s package of significant new entitlement cuts tied to new tax revenues, calling them “no way to lead and move the country forward.”
The White House had portrayed the proposal, part of the budget it will release next week, as a compromise with Congressional Republicans that could have put them on track for another run at a grand bargain.
But Boehner said he will not consider new revenues as part of the deal, arguing that “modest” entitlement savings should not “be held hostage for more tax hikes.”
Basically, Boehner’s saying that he likes sequestration better than he likes revenue — which is stupid. Every time Boehnner and his Tea Party wing of the Republican lunatic asylum pulls something like this, they sign their names on sequestration yet again. At this point, it’s the Republican sequester, because it’s absolutely clear they have no interest in doing anything about it — or even that they’re particularly worried about it
And he did liberals a favor by rejecting the “grand bargain” once again. We shouldn’t be cutting entitlement spending, because it adds nothing to the deficit. Chained CPI is merely a raid on the Social Security trust fund to plug budget holes. It’s basically legalized theft of your retirement savings.
Let the guys who blew the hole in the budget plug the budget holes. Tax the rich — it’s not class warfare, it’s getting them to pay back what they blew.
Thanks John, once again your pigheadness saves everyone from your party’s redistributionist ideas.