Tweet
Ezra Klein casually mentions that chained CPI (CPI stands for the Consumer Price Index) may be part of the deficit deal.
Right now, Social Security’s cost-of-living increases are tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers and the tax code is indexed to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. For reasons too technical to go into in this post, but which the truly committed can read about here, experts on both sides of the aisle think that these measures overstate the actual rate of inflation.
To answer these criticisms, the Bureau of Labor Statistics created a new measure of inflation known as “chained CPI.” Because I’d like at least a few readers to get to the end of this post, I’ll omit the gory details. What’s important is that, as you can see on the graph atop this post, it grows more slowly than its predecessors. That means two things: The checks issued by Social Security and other federal retirement programs grow more slowly, and people’s incomes grow more quickly than the tax brackets. So the government spends less and, because more people are finding themselves in higher marginal tax brackets, raises more.
Like Klein, I’ll say that we can go into the details, but they don’t really matter. The end result is that chained CPI results in a smaller COLA. To add some numbers to this, chained CPI leads to $300 billion in government savings over ten years, $200 billion from smaller benefits on Social Security and other programs which use a COLA, and $100 billion from higher taxes because the brackets increase more slowly. So it’s a 2:1 benefit cut to tax increase.
As for what this means to the average Social Security beneficiary, Rep. Xavier Becerra askedSocial Security’s chief actuary to assess the impact of moving to chained CPI on benefit levels. Basically this would lead to an average COLA reduction of 0.3 percentage points every year. Over time, those numbers accumulate. So an 85 year-old beneficiary misses out on 6.5% relative to current scheduled benefits. That’s for those who turn 65 the year of the turnover; those who turn 65 in later years end up losing out on much more income. Over time, this generates a lot of savings out of the checks of Social Security recipients.
So let me ask you: do you think that the Social Security system produces checks that are too large? My grandmother is a recipient. Her rent in a very modest apartment and her Medicare premiums take up 80% or so of her entire Social Security check. She makes do with other savings, but money is extremely tight.
It seems that the practical effect of making a more parsimonious Social Security benefit through chained CPI, which is not weighted to the cost of living for the elderly, including their health care costs, but weighted to a more “realistic” cost of living according to someone with a green eyeshade, would be that seniors would need more help to pay their bills, either in government welfare programs (which defeats the entire purpose and just shifts the cost from federal to state agencies) or their children and family (which sucks dollars out of the economy and weakens it).
If the retirement age cannot be raised, if a real benefit cut cannot be undertaken, this is plan C – a wonkish, confusing-sounding concept that is intentionally obtuse. But it’s really not. It’s a benefit cut.
4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
From Obama’s 2008 “yes we can” to 2011 Obama, DINO’s and GOP “no we can’t” let Bush tax cuts to the uber riche expire, tax corporations for their true cost to taxpayers, reduce DoD world footprint and offshore spending or pursue Banksters on their massive ponzi schemes.
Thanks for highlighting yet another sneaky trick to hurt the little people, David. Just like your granny, my Mom and many other seniors depend on Social Security- and face regular increases in their share of the Medicare costs- costs that, I believe, have been increasing faster than any of the CPIs mentioned in your post. This proposal is just sick when you take into account all the issues raised by Arbusto in Comment 1.
It is a benefit and I think we must do everything we can to let the American people know that it is a benefit cut.
Arbusto, although I whole heartedly agree with the points you raise, on the Bush tax cuts I still think it had to be done (because of the GOP and self-styled “conservative” DINOS). The other option would’ve meant the those two (very unAmerican IMHO) groups unemployment benefits would’ve been cut to 2 million immediately and many more with each passing month along with other much needed social support fundings- in short, a fast, hard brake on an economy finally beginning to recover; the extra $40 billion or so a year for two years was probably worth not losing what had already been recovered from the mess we had in 2008. The thing to do now is be sure that the cuts actually do expire as agreed, since we all know the GOP isn’t likely to be honest in anything they say. Now, if only more, many many more people will get involved and make sure the issues you raise are addressed in 2012 the Nation will be a better place for all.