One of the more insidious possibilities in a debt limit deal is the use of something called “chained CPI,” which would result in changes to how the government calculates the annual cost of living adjustment. This would impact both how tax brackets change on an annual basis, and also how the COLA gets applied in federal programs, particularly Social Security. And it would save quite a bit of money, around $300 billion over 10 years if applied to the whole of government. Congressional aides have confirmed that this is on the table in any deal.
Let’s look at reductions in the growth of Social Security benefits, for example. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a reduction in benefits from the baseline by $108 billion over 10 years. According to Social Security’s chief actuary, beneficiaries who retire at age 65 and receive the average benefit would get roughly $500 less in their annual benefit at age 75, and $1,000 less at age 85. The benefit cut compounds over time, as the COLA adjustment reduces every year. As this would take effect immediately, it also represents a benefit cut for current retirees.
Using the term “chained CPI” makes this sound like some obscure change, but you can demystify it pretty easily. Every year, Social Security and other plans have a cost of living adjustment that alters their benefits based on prices. The current way that’s calculated, known as the CPI-W (the Consumer Price Index for wage earners) actually doesn’t capture the true cost of living for Social Security beneficiaries, argued a series of experts on a conference call put on by Social Security Works. In particular, it doesn’t take into account the large increases in the cost of health care, which fall particularly on the elderly and people on disability, the core beneficiaries of Social Security.
So you have a few options in that case. You could use the CPI-E, which does a better job of capturing real costs, or you could create a real Consumer Price Index specifically targeted to people who collect Social Security, weighting their average expenses accordingly, and raise benefits based on that. Or, you can use this chained CPI, which does an even worse job than the current COLA calculator of accounting for these costs, and apply it to Social Security, mainly to save money. As Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute said on the call, “There’s this impression put out that this is just a technocratic fix that would impact senior citizens very much. I disagree on both counts.” Bivens and EPI put out a longer paper explaining their opposition to chained CPI.
If you think that Social Security beneficiaries have been reaping a windfall because of an inaccurate COLA every year, then chained CPI is the answer for you. If you think that Social Security benefits are already inadequate, then chained CPI takes this in the exact wrong direction. Heck, even Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute thinks that chained CPI is “wrong” for calculating Social Security benefits.
And the prime victims of this change would be poor people, who use more of their Social Security check as their sole source of income, and women. The National Women’s Law Center has a study showing that women, by virtue of their longer life expectancy and their greater reliance on Social Security, would bear more of a burden from a benefit cut of this type.
The above two briefing papers have all the technical information you would need to talk about this. But the main point is clear. This is a benefit cut. And it comes at a time when the older unemployed face extreme hardships. So people aged 55-64 may be struggling at the end of their careers, using up their savings, and then when they at least reach Social Security, they’ll get hit with a benefit cut.
The use of chained CPI would also increase taxes by having the brackets increase more slowly. This again is somewhat regressive because we don’t really have high-end tax brackets. But overall, this is a technocratic way to achieve benefit cuts to the people who need them the most.
…In addition, this breaks the promise that Social Security changes would be included in a deficit deal, a promise made by the President and other Democratic leaders.
UPDATE: AARP, from June 22:
It is important to remember that Social Security is currently the principal source of income for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one third of them depend on Social Security benefits for nearly all of their income. In addition, over the last two years, Social Security beneficiaries have not seen any increase in their monthly checks, even as they have faced rising costs in health care and other basic necessities. As the chained CPI would result in a lower cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) each year, reducing the COLA even by a small amount is a harmful cut for many retirees.






11 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
These radical extremist so-called republicans and the water carrying Democrats had better wake up to the fact that the seniors, the disabled, and the survivors that have SS and Medicare have children and grandchildren that will vote in mass against any politician that attempts to cut those benefits.
Just add up all the recipients and multiply times three and these people can vote anybody out of office.
I think it is despicable that these Fascist politicians would want to reduce the $1,000 per month, on average, benefit these recipients receive.
Raise the taxes on the rich and very rich to the years America had it’s greatest growth in GDP.
The proponents of this fix are simply evil.
Democrats will surrender everything and then claim victory and the Obamabots will dutifully march to the polls affirming a seemingly endless number of wars, cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and now I hear they’re going to cut Federal employee pensions just to show America how much Democrats hate labor.
Vote the bums out. All the bums. This is the perfect bipartisan solution.
I believe David has already linked to this article earlier, but I’m linking to it here again because it gets right to the nitty gritty of the CPI mess they’ve created–and it’s from 1997!
Worst President Ever!
Obama has several ways around this debt-limit crisis:
* The much-discussed 14th Ammendment option
* The prioritization of payments, e.g., corporations that supported Republicans get paid last.
* Reverse QE: the Fed could sell the $2T of Treasury bonds it holds and use the proceeds to pay the bills. (That was presented today on Lou Dobbs by a Univ of Maryland economist.)
* The jumbo-coin option that Beowulf, letsgetitdone, and I have been promoting.
vcytdyt
welcome to our website:
http://tinyurl.com/3ftbtnj
shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.
if you like to order anything you like.
More details,
please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;
Service is our Lift.
enjoy yourself.
thank you!!
Go back to where you came from.
Cheapest VANS Shoes
Tiffany Jewelry Company
Wholesale Hollister Clothing
fashion stuff
offer High Quality
Also Low Price
Free Shipping
Accept Any Payment
Ship out At 24hours Delivered at 8days
“These radical extremist so-called republicans and the water carrying Democrats had better wake up to the fact that the seniors, the disabled, and the survivors that have SS and Medicare have children and grandchildren that will vote in mass against any politician that attempts to cut those benefits.”
Well, the voters reacted to the extreme leftist radical Obamacare by electing more Republicans who are the ones determined to slash those benefits.
I know you in the radical leftist elite think the voters are idiots and the Democratic minority need to beat the Republican majority, perhaps by taking their canes to them on the House floor.
The problem is not in the actions of the Democrats elected to Congress or the White House, nor even in the voting booth.
The problem is in the failure of the progress intellectual elite to craft a message the appeals to “individual liberty” and talks of “getting government off your back.”
Liberals are called anti-American when they use arguments like “illegal unconstitutional war” because we must “support the troops” “right or wrong.”
Conservatives have funded think tanks to shape academic fields of study into propaganda and pervert social and physical science. Economics has moved away from science into idolatry – a step beyond ideology.
Civics has been removed from many schools – a matter of great concern to Sandra Day O’Connor. I took civics in Indiana in the 60s, and I learned about our government, and the responsibility of paying taxes.
Since then, the conservatives have taught that taxes are theft, that taxes are a drag on the economy.
But what have liberals or progressives offered in return? Calls for attacking the rich with pitch forks and taxes.
Social Security has been transformed by propaganda into a retirement program, destroying the program created by FDR. How could progressives and liberals allowed that to happen.
Social Security is the unemployment benefit, the disability benefit, the dependent benefit for survivors. Fewer than half the beneficiaries of Social Security are retired: they are the unemployed, the disabled, the survivors, the dependents of workers, and yes, the retired. Social Security isn’t about the people who are going to be 85 in the future, but about everyone today. Everyone benefits from Social Security today – everyone.
Conservatives have carefully crafted their policies to benefit “everyone”. By denying a right to gay marriage, “everyone” is protected. By slashing government spending on entitlements for a few, “everyone” benefits.
The reason everyone benefits from Social Security everyday is the same everyone benefits from their car insurance everyday. You never know when you will suffer from some misfortune, so you buy insurance to protect you everyday, from a car accident that might occur everyday or the disability or death or dismissal from work everyday.
Yet, conservatives have sold the idea that Social Security is a benefit for a few paid for by the many. Hey, car and fire insurance is a benefit for the few paid for by the many. Auto accidents, house fires, death, disability, old age are for a society a certainty, and no individual can ever be sure they won’t be in the certainty group of society. Conservatives have argued that people chose to have that car accident, chose to have their house burn in a fire, by choosing for Texas to have a record drought, by choosing to get old.
Tell me, who chooses to be old.
While the conservatives run purges, that would please Stalin and Mao to cleans their party, they address the benefits of their positions on the issues as benefiting everyone by countering the liberals who are determined to punish everyone to serve some bleeding heart minority who should just take responsibility.
And the comments that whine about the small groups of people who are going to suffer just plays into the hands of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, et al.
Obama has been speaking of “one America” in part to address the hyperpartisan politics that turns off millions, makes millions more totally cynical speaking of choosing between evils, but also move away from the identity politics that came out of the Civil Rights era.
MLK in the year before he died had shifted from the rights of blacks, or minorities, but the rights of everyone to peace and social justice.
Well, stop thinking about the 85 year old in to decades and think instead about the unborn baby of a worker who just died, leaving behind his pregnant widow – does Social Security provide some minimal support for them today? Seriously, that widow and child are going to be in greater need today than the 85 year old retiree in two decades even with the cuts. And the cuts in two decades can be addressed in a decade, but the cuts in Social Security in the terms FDR defined it are a far greater need.
Of course, when Obama cut a deal in December to save part of FDR’s Social Security, the unemployment benefits, he and the Democrats weren’t given credit for trying to protect FDR’s Social Security legacy.