then why does President Obama and his team point to it as something that he is only agreeing to because it is necessary for a "balanced approach?"
If Chained CPI "is not a cut," then why would Republicans accept the President's balanced approach proposal? Won't they ask for "real cuts?"
If Chained CPI "is not a cut," how does it save $130 billion?
Here's my point, you can argue for Chained CPI as part of "a balanced approach" or preferable to the sequester or better than other cuts that would be contemplated in lieu of Chained CPI. You can argue that Chained CPI is a more accurate measure of inflation.
We can disagree on those things.
But the idea that Chained CPI is "not a cut" is, simply put, false.
Here is the easy test, no calculus required - if there is no Chained CPI, and Social Security remains as is, will Social Security benefits be higher than if there is Chained CPI? The answer is yes.
The purpose of Chained CPI is to reduce expenditures in Social Security. In other words, the purpose of Chained CPI is to cut Social Security. It is dishonest to say it is not a cut, and indeed, counterproductive to what President Obama is trying to do (foolishly imo) - which is to prove that he is offering a "balanced approach."
To argue that Chained CPI is "not a cut" is to undercut what President Obama is trying to do. Watch Peter Orzag do it:
if switching to the chained index reduces the 10-year deficit by less than $150 billion and the 75-year Social Security actuarial gap by less than 10 percent, can a “grand bargain” built around it really be all that grand?
You see how it works? 'That's not much of a cut. We need MORE cuts!'
But most importantly, it is false.