Skip to main content

View Diary: New report highlights inequality in the Social Security debate (43 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can't stop him from "reforming" (6+ / 0-)

    Just today he says:

    And that’s why I’m reaching out to Republicans and Democrats to come together around a balanced approach, a smart, phased-in approach to deficit reduction that includes smart spending cuts and entitlement reforms and new revenue, and that won’t hurt our middle class or slow economic growth.
    So he's still deliberately lying.  The Chained CPI has the lower end of the middle class squarely in its target.  He is very deliberately hurting middle class seniors.  He isn't reforming anything.  
    •  Exactly! And when on the White House (7+ / 0-)

      website somebody (Gene Sperling?) had the audacity to dub Chained CPI as "Superlative CPI" (or wording similar to that), I almost couldn't believe my eyes.  This twisting of language is something I would expect from Republicans----NOT a Democratic administration.  It's a cheap trick and disgusting.

      "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

      by 3goldens on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 02:15:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  'Superlative' is just textbook econ talk (6+ / 0-)

        for Chained-CPI. Per Dean Baker, who is as good on this topic as it can get.

        On the other hand even though the term wasn't invented by this White House, nobody made them pull the term out of those obscure textbook and journal articles and try to sell it to the American people.

        So yeah it is a cheap trick. Just not as cheap as it first appears.

        socialsecuritydefender.blogspot.com - SocSec.Defender at gmail.com - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

        by Bruce Webb on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:24:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  3g, this term was actually 'coined' during the (3+ / 0-)

        Bush administration--2002, if my memory serves me correctly.

        I linked to a resource on this last week in a diary I posted (elsewhere).  

        But, no doubt the Administration probably believes that 'it sounds more appealing, or less threatening.' ;-)

        Mollie

        "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

        hiddennplainsight

        by musiccitymollie on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 11:02:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sperling knows it's a cut (0+ / 0-)

        In his AMA this week, he insists that they will use some of the "savings" to protect some of the people affected:

        [–]GeneSperling[S] 15 points 3 days ago
        The cost of living question relates to how the government measures inflation. Today, we use a measure of inflation called the “CPI” or consumer price index. An alternative would be to switch to what is known as the superlative or “chained” CPI. The superlative CPI makes two technical corrections to the standard CPI: it accounts for consumers’ ability to substitute between goods in response to changes in relative prices and accounts for biases arising from small samples. Most experts agree that the Superlative CPI provides a more accurate measure of the average change in the cost of living than the standard CPI.
        The President would prefer to have this adjustment in the context of a larger Social Security reform, but he has said to Speaker Boehner that if it is part of a larger agreement that would include tax reform that would raise revenue by cutting loopholes and expenditures from the most well off, that he would be willing to agree to it because in divided government, if we’re going to make progress, we have to be willing to compromise. One important note: any agreement to make this change to the CPI must include a dedication of a portion of the savings to protections for low-income Americans, certain veterans, and older Social Security beneficiaries. Our current offer which reduces the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years includes those protections.

        We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

        by Urban Owl on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 02:13:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site