# Is the progressive outrage over chained CPI warranted? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 10, 2013, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280 "2013-04-10T01:58:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/41 "2013-04-10T23:20:06Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > where in the Social Security “contract” (legitimate expectation) is there the promise that a certain method would be used in the future to decide how much to\* increase\* a person’s benefits? I’m beginning to sound like a right winger, but jesus, how is a smaller increase called a “cut?” There is no promise. Thats the problem. For years supporters of ss have defended it as “old age insurance”. It is not. It’s inferior to private insurance in many ways. One is that the terms can be changed by the payer willy nilly. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/42 "2013-04-11T00:30:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It should not be overlooked that the impact of the switch is almost as big on the tax side as on the spending side. Apparently the tax brackets are indexed to CPI, and switching to C-CPI will put a lot of middle class taxpayers into higher brackets.I don’t know if that’s looking at the whole picture. > > A lot of Democrats felt pretty triumphant when the Republicans caved on $600B of tax increases with nothing to show for it. This is the flip side of the coin. If they hadn’t “caved” there would be even greater “tax increases”. It’s just as fair to say the GOP negotiated continued tax cuts as it is to say the Dems got tax increases. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/43 "2013-04-11T03:00:34Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > If they hadn’t “caved” there would be even greater “tax increases”. It’s just as fair to say the GOP negotiated continued tax cuts as it is to say the Dems got tax increases. I don’t think so. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats wanted the even greater tax increases, so it doesn’t count as a concession by the Democrats or a victory for the Republicans that they were averted. Point being that Obama and the Democrats got a big part of what they wanted at that time and conceded nothing at all. Republicans were clear at the time that they were going along then but intended to dig in in Round 2. In light of this history, to look at the current situation in isolation and say that the Republicans “won’t give a thing” is misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/44 "2013-04-11T03:19:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t think so. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats wanted the even greater tax increases, so it doesn’t count as a concession by the Democrats or a victory for the Republicans that they were averted. > > Point being that Obama and the Democrats got a big part of what they wanted at that time and conceded nothing at all. Republicans were clear at the time that they were going along then but intended to dig in in Round 2. In light of this history, to look at the current situation in isolation and say that the Republicans “won’t give a thing” is misleading. The Democrats did concede on raising the income where the Bush Tax Cuts would be ended up 250K to 400K. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/45 "2013-04-11T14:56:38Z")
There are two problems, IMHO, with Obama proposing chained CPI: one policy problem, and one political problem. The policy problem: the defined-benefit pensions that were the norm in my parents’ generation have largely disappeared, and been replaced by 401(k)s and similar instruments. The evidence rather strongly suggests that most people don’t have much in their 401(k)s. Social Security benefits need to be increased, not reduced. Regardless of which inflation measure is more accurate _for the sorts of expenses that elderly people have_ (and we don’t know whether or not that’s true), this will result in Social Security payments _being smaller than they otherwise would have been_, and that’s not a good thing. It does amount to a Social Security cut, no matter how you spin it. The political problem: it’s important to be publicly for the things you’re for. If you want to keep Social Security as is, but are willing to compromise on chained CPI, the position you should take is no cuts to Social Security. You should only discuss compromises _after the other side says_, yes, we should cut Social Security. **If the GOP wants Social Security cuts, let them politically own them.** And if they don’t, then why are we even talking about this? Instead, by offering the compromise the GOP had hinted that it wanted, Obama is the one who is proposing to cut Social Security, and the GOP can denounce it, run against it, and generally bamboozle voters into thinking that they don’t want to cut programs like that, but the Dems do - even though the larger truth is exactly the opposite. It worked for the GOP in 2010 with Medicare, and chances are it’ll work for them again in 2014 with Social Security. Can’t anyone on our side play this game? So that’s why, as a progressive, I’m pretty damned pissed at Obama right now. :headdesk: ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/46 "2013-04-11T15:35:53Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Instead, by offering the compromise the GOP had hinted that it wanted, Obama is the one who is proposing to cut Social Security, and the GOP can denounce it, run against it, and generally bamboozle voters into thinking that they don’t want to cut programs like that, but the Dems do - even though the larger truth is exactly the opposite. I really don’t have strong feelings on the proper inflation index to use, but I completely agree with this. From a negotiating perspective, Obama should have just let Bernie Sanders write his proposed budget and then gone from there. If he doesn’t want to use the chained CPI, as he says he doesn’t, then he shouldn’t have proposed it first. Now this is going to be the minimum bargaining position from here on out. He also seems perpetually surprised for such an intelligent man that Congressional Republicans are not interested in meeting him halfway on this, or a quarter of the way, or really any way at all. ---
**Author:** ![pinqy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a3d4f5/32.png) [@pinqy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinqy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/47 "2013-04-11T16:26:27Z")
[quote=“Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus, post:37, topic:655280”] See my post above. An increase just to keep up with inflation is not an increase. [quote] then there have never been any increases to Social Security since the CPI-W has been used to cacluate the COLA. > [@](#): > > An increase that does not keep pace with inflation is a cut. Since the C-CPI IS a measure of inflation, how can it not keep up with itself? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/48 "2013-04-11T17:18:46Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The policy problem: the defined-benefit pensions that were the norm in my parents’ generation have largely disappeared, and been replaced by 401(k)s and similar instruments. The evidence rather strongly suggests that most people don’t have much in their 401(k)s. Social Security benefits need to be increased, not reduced. Regardless of which inflation measure is more accurate _for the sorts of expenses that elderly people have_ (and we don’t know whether or not that’s true), this will result in Social Security payments _being smaller than they otherwise would have been_, and that’s not a good thing. It does amount to a Social Security cut, no matter how you spin it. You can argue it’s a cut, and that SS benefits should be higher, but the reality is that we cannot afford it long term. Even the [CPBB](http://www.cbpp.org/files/2-22-12bud.pdf) agrees it might be a good idea. That said, I (and many other liberals) realize you can tax people only so much; especially if the proceeds are primarily used as a wealth transfer to old people. I get that many vulnerable people truly reliant on those payments, but I question whether assuming the public as a whole is wiling to indefinitely foot the bill for grandma’s expensive, moderately-effective medications with no eye towards reducing costs on her or the government’s part. SS was intended to be a social insurance program, NOT A WELFARE PROGRAM. I think we on the left need to keep in mind that once the redistribution becomes skewed towards the poor to a level that it is indistinguishable from many welfare programs, you are going to lose the financial and political support of many, many people. Let’s be honest, many of those people have a reasonable position that everyone needs to plan for their own retirement as much as they possibly can, and that they are only willing to sacrifice their present only so much so that an old person can live a bit longer. Again, how much more of your paycheck are you willing to give to the government to provide for older Americans? Especially knowing that you will not likely receive the same in return. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > The political problem: it’s important to be publicly for the things you’re for. If you want to keep Social Security as is, but are willing to compromise on chained CPI, the position you should take is no cuts to Social Security. You should only discuss compromises _after the other side says_, yes, we should cut Social Security. Why? I think we can rightfully dismiss this fiction that ANYTHING Obama does will be met with honest debate from the GOP. Therefore, he is left with two options: propose a liberal agenda that both he and the most of the public don’t support, or propose a reasonable compromise that is likely better for America and might actually get a vote. First off, Obama is not a liberal in most senses. Second, co-signing anything Bernie Sanders okays means he will be out of step will about 85%+ of the public. Among them, many moderates who will rightfully assume Obama doesn’t actually want to govern or lead because he is failing to take action on an issue that cannot continue as is. People justifiably give him the benefit of the doubt when it it comes to deficits and spending, but that support will rapidly erode if the public doesn’t see some recognition on his part that it’s a temporary means of digging out of our economic circumstances, and that there is a concrete plan to move towards fiscal solvency on our long term issues. Obamacare was one (imperfect) part of that. Addressing military spending and SS is another. The idea that he his opening gambit must be some lefty fantasy budget is just poor strategic thinking given the economic and political circumstances. Dems have been doing well lately in large part because they have been seen as the adults in the room. Ceding that ground by engaging in a dishonest and futile back and forth is not helping anyone, and only serves to help the public justify not making a discerning judgement between the two parties. Think about it this way. If you have to split $100 with another person, do you start by dishonestly arguing you should get $99, and the other guy should get $1. Sure, it seems logical to do so if you know the other guy is gonna be a dick and suggest the opposite, but given that the audience has a clear appreciation for and understanding of the concept of fairness, it doesn’t typically behoove you to allow the discourse to degrade to such a ridiculous level because it poisons all debate. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/49 "2013-04-11T17:50:52Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > I am a progressive and I have studied price indexing and I can honestly say that while there is no perfect measure of price increase, chained CPI is an improvement over the current CPI measure. So I do support using it, however, given the considerable economic effect it will have on individuals, I believe it needs to be phased in somehow. I have not really looked at the proposal(s) too closely, so I am not sure how it is being implemented, but I could imagine, a simplified way would be to use a weighted average of chained and unchained CPI over time increasing toward the chained until say ten years from now chained is used exclusively. I agree- it’s inherently a more accurate version of the CPI. Now whether or not more accurate measurements incur greater or lesser COLAs for SS recipients is a different story, and whether or not those COLAs need to be adjusted as a result is as well. If we’re overpaying, or not paying enough due to inaccuracy or slop in the formulas, that’s something to be fixed in and of itself. ---
**Author:** ![pinqy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a3d4f5/32.png) [@pinqy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinqy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/50 "2013-04-11T18:28:49Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I agree- it’s inherently a more accurate version of the CPI. Now whether or not more accurate measurements incur greater or lesser COLAs for SS recipients is a different story, and whether or not those COLAs need to be adjusted as a result is as well. Oh, it’ll be equal or lower than the CPI-W currently used. I think it’s theoretically possible for it to be higher, but that would be very unusual. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/51 "2013-04-11T18:51:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The policy problem: the defined-benefit pensions that were the norm in my parents’ generation have largely disappeared, and been replaced by 401(k)s and similar instruments. The evidence rather strongly suggests that most people don’t have much in their 401(k)s. Social Security benefits need to be increased, not reduced. Regardless of which inflation measure is more accurate _for the sorts of expenses that elderly people have_ (and we don’t know whether or not that’s true), this will result in Social Security payments _being smaller than they otherwise would have been_, and that’s not a good thing. It does amount to a Social Security cut, no matter how you spin it. I agree with this. This is part of the problem with all social welfare programs - that they crowd out alternatives and people come to rely on them. There is no doubt that people privately save a lot less money for retirement than they would otherwise as a result of reliance on SS, and any time you change the terms of the deal, you’re pulling the rug out from under them to an extent. > [@](#): > > The political problem: it’s important to be publicly for the things you’re for. If you want to keep Social Security as is, but are willing to compromise on chained CPI, the position you should take is no cuts to Social Security. You should only discuss compromises _after the other side says_, yes, we should cut Social Security. > > **If the GOP wants Social Security cuts, let them politically own them.** And if they don’t, then why are we even talking about this? > > Instead, by offering the compromise the GOP had hinted that it wanted, Obama is the one who is proposing to cut Social Security, and the GOP can denounce it, run against it, and generally bamboozle voters into thinking that they don’t want to cut programs like that, but the Dems do - even though the larger truth is exactly the opposite. > > It worked for the GOP in 2010 with Medicare, and chances are it’ll work for them again in 2014 with Social Security. > > Can’t anyone on our side play this game? I disagree here. IMO the Republicans have been a lot bolder in going out on a limb in favor of potentially unpopular votes and positions than the Democrats, as evinced by support for the Ryan budget plan and the like. The Democrats have for the most part been the party of “yes you can have it all, and you will have all gain and no pain (unless you’re a rich guy who already has it all and is not paying his fair share)”. Politically, Obama gains from this move, as it positions him as the moderate center, and makes it easier for him to portray the Republicans as unyielding extremists. The risk and the downside from granting this particular concession upfront is that there are already a lot of moderates and outside groups which support it. As a result, by Obama supporting it too he runs the risk of further mainstreaming the idea to the point where it gains momentum of its own, and lessens his ability to extract further concessions from the Republicans on this basis. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/52 "2013-04-11T19:00:05Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Basically, if you want to see arguments on why progressive think this is a big deal, go to the front page of the Daily Kos or similar websites. You’ll find not only arguments that it’s flat out a cut to Social Security without ifs, ands, or buts, but you’ll also see arguments that it’s bad politics (as they think that Republicans will just run as the defenders of Social Security in 2014, using this as the basis of their anti-Democrat attacks, and that “low information voters” will eat it up, not remembering that Republicans have also long run on outright eliminating Social Security and similar programs). Well, [that didn’t take long](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/nrcc-chair-blasts-obama-budget-as-shocking-attack-on-seniors.php): > [@](#): > > Remember those warnings about how instead of welcoming President Obama’s adoption of Chained CPI, Republicans would continue to deny him a budget deal and attack him for proposing to cut Social Security? > > Well Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) – who also happens to be chairman of the House GOP’s re-election committee – just showed how it’s done, saying Obama’s budget “lays out a shocking attack on seniors.”… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/53 "2013-04-11T19:03:05Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Think about it this way. If you have to split $100 with another person, do you start by dishonestly arguing you should get $99, and the other guy should get $1. Sure, it seems logical to do so if you know the other guy is gonna be a dick and suggest the opposite, but given that the audience has a clear appreciation for and understanding of the concept of fairness, it doesn’t typically behoove you to allow the discourse to degrade to such a ridiculous level because it poisons all debate. 1. There is no “if” about it – based on track record the GOP position on such a scenario would be that Obama should toss in some of his own money and split the pot $150 / -$50. 2. There is no issue of “allowing” the discourse to degrade; it’s already there. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/54 "2013-04-11T19:11:59Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Well, [that didn’t take long](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/nrcc-chair-blasts-obama-budget-as-shocking-attack-on-seniors.php): If you look at the full quote, he doesn’t say anything about SS or C-CPI. He seems to be referring to the fact that the budget [cut $306 billion in projected Medicare payments to health care providers](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/politics/obamas-budget-cuts-focus-on-medicare-medicaid-and-military.html?_r=0), which is what could be described as “crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine, certainly, and around the country”. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280/55 "2013-04-11T19:13:39Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > “Dole”? I’ve paid into that system for 45+ years. If I had taken the same money and instead invested it in a 401(k)-like tax-free program, I would have no need for any retirement money from the government. I do not view whatever I end up getting from Social Security as a dole. Thank you. Not meaning to hijack, but is this true in general? Would people be better off if there were no social security and those payments just went into a 401(k)? And if so, what’s the point? I guess the higher earners would be better off, and the lower earners are better off with social security, because they are being somewhat subsidized by the higher earners. Is that right? And if so, what’s the approximate dividing line between the two? Sorry for my ignorance on these matters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-progressive-outrage-over-chained-cpi-warranted/655280.md?page=2)