Skip to main content

View Diary: Chained CPI for Dummies (78 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  thanks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I am familiar with many articles like these. and this one raises good political points, such as the objective of conservatives to use  chained CPI in some cases but not others, which is clearly about right wing economic politics.

    my point is that we can discuss the politics, and we can discuss the policies. but when we simply assert that chained CPI must do X simply because we don't trust the people advocating it or don't agree with their political goals, we end up in a tangent that takes us away from an informed discussion.

    the link that glynis posted above for CBPP provides a better evaluation of the role chained CPI could play in policy. the BLS also has a good FAQ on chained CPI. both are better than most of the punditry and DKOS diaries I've seen.  

    •  Agreed. Actually, my major source of reference is (0+ / 0-)

      the President's own documents--his 2012-2013 Budget, his proposal to the Super Committee, and his own Fiscal Commission's proposal, which the Administration has repeatedly endorsed, The Moment of Truth.

      I've posted links to all of these at DKos repeatedly, and IMO, they tell the real story.

      The problem with reading an analysis like the CBPP's, is that if an individual is not familiar with the total percentage of cuts that are being recommended (and quite likely to be enacted), then the fact that there is a "5 %" bump-up at age 85, means very little.

      From The Moment Of Truth:


       Add a new “20-year benefit bump up” to protect those Social Security recipients who have potentially outlived their personal retirement resources.  The oldest old population – those over age 85 – is projected to expand rapidly over the coming decades: from 5.8 million this year to 19 million in 2050.  

      To better insure against the risk of outliving one’s own retirement resources, the Commission proposes a new “20-year benefit bump-up” that offers a benefit enhancement, equal to 5 percent of the average benefit, 20 years after eligibility.  The enhancement is phased in over five years (1 percent per year).  Eligibility is defined by the earliest eligibility age (EEA) for retirees and the determination of disability for disabled workers.

      Even Representative Jan Schkowsky (IL) acknowledges that some beneficiaries stand to lose up to 35% of their monthly benefits, if all three (3) cuts are enacted (as recommended in The Moment of Truth).  Here's the link to her Reuters Op-Ed entitled, "The Sham Of Simpson-Bowles."

      Here's an excerpt:

      For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent.
      So somehow, we're all supposed to be 'relieved and grateful' that a handful of seniors who live until age 85 may recoup 5% of their monthly benefits, after having already had up to 35% of their monthly check cut?

      Personally, I don't think so.


      “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

      by musiccitymollie on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:10:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  there's also (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      one from BLS on common misconceptions that I found informative.

      •  Thanks for the link. I'll bookmark it, and check (0+ / 0-)

        it out.


        “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

        by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:24:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site