Fact #1: Chained CPI is in Obama's FY2014 budget proposal.
I don't know why some people seem to be over-analyzing Obama's nuanced media quotes when you can go straight to the source at whitehouse.gov:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/...
The Budget contains the President’s compromise offer to Speaker Boehner from December. As part of that offer, the President was willing to accept Republican proposals to switch to the chained CPI. But, the Budget makes clear that the openness to chained CPI depends on two conditions. The President is open to switching to the chained CPI only if:
* The change is part of a balanced deficit reduction package that includes substantial revenue raised through tax reform.
* It is coupled with measures to protect the vulnerable and avoid increasing poverty and hardship.
And page 46 of the budget PDF:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/...
USING A MORE ACCURATE MEASURE OF INFLATION
In the interest of achieving a bipartisan deficit
reduction agreement, beginning in 2015 the Bud-
get would change the measure of inflation used
by the Federal Government for most programs
and for the Internal Revenue Code from the stan-
dard Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the alterna-
tive, more accurate chained CPI, which grows
slightly more slowly. Unlike the standard CPI,
the chained CPI fully accounts for a consumer's
ability to substitute between goods in response
to changes in relative prices and also adjusts for
small sample bias. Most economists agree that
the chained CPI provides a more accurate mea-
sure of the average change in the cost of living
than the standard CPI.
Switching to the chained CPI, which will reduce
deficits and improve Social Security solvency, has
been proposed in almost every major bipartisan
deficit reduction plan put forward over the past
several years, including the Bowles-Simpson Fis-
cal Commission plan, the Bipartisan "Gang of
Six" plan, and the Domenici-Rivlin Bipartisan
Policy Center plan.
The President has made clear that any such
change in approach should protect the most vul-
nerable. For that reason, the Budget includes
protections for the very elderly and others who
rely on Social Security for long periods of time,
and only applies the change to non-means tested
benefit programs. The switch to chained CPI will
reduce deficits by at least $230 billion over the
next 10 years.
So it's not some crackpot conspiracy theory. That said, an Obama defense...
Fact #2: Proposing something does not necessarily mean desiring something.
Tough choices:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/...
By including this compromise proposal in the Budget, the President is demonstrating his willingness to make tough choices and his seriousness about finding common ground to further reduce the deficit.
Now, I'm pretty cynical when it comes to politicians, but strictly speaking, one can propose something as a tough, pragmatic choice without necessarily desiring that something. Basically, you can't make the leap from Obama's proposing chained CPI to Obama's desiring chained CPI (nor can you make the leap from Obama's proposing chained CPI to Obama's not desiring chained CPI, for that matter).
I don't really know what Obama wants, but I do know the political reality on the ground means we're not going to be able to bum-rush a 100%-left-approved budget through the negotiation process, no matter how many times we make fun of Boehner's beta-carotene addiction and no matter how many times we call Cruz wirty dords from our sofa chairs.
Let's be serious: The recent “victory” was a can-kicking exercise. Wall Street didn't want the U.S. to default. Karl Fucking Rove didn't want the U.S. to default. Various shades of insanity north of the Tea Party didn't want the U.S. to default. The celebration was tragically revealing, as if the Dems were receiving praise for tying their own shoelaces.
Fact #3: The Senate didn't unanimously (voice) vote against chained CPI in general
Sanders Amendment 198 (co-sponsored by Harkin, Hirono, and Whitehouse) mentions only disabled veterans and their survivors (bold text mine):
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...
4 The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
5 the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or
6 committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and
7 limits in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolu-
8 tions, amendments, motions, or conference reports related
9 to protecting the benefits of disabled veterans and their
10 survivors, which may not include a chained CPI, by the
1 amounts provided in that legislation for that purpose, pro-
2 vided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
3 over either the period of the total fiscal years 2013
4 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years
5 2013 through 2023.
Now, here's the thing: There seems to be a lot of conflation going on with this Sanders-Harkin amendment of late March, which got the unanimous voice vote, and the Sanders-Harkin concurrent resolution of late April, which, to the best of my knowledge, has only meager support.
This conflation has occurred even from the horse's mouth.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...
WASHINGTON, March 22 – The Senate tonight voted to block cuts in benefits for Social Security and disabled veterans.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...
The Senate late Friday voted to block cuts in benefits for Social Security and disabled veterans.
[...]
No ‘Chained CPI” Sanders amendment to protect seniors on Social Security and disabled veterans put the Senate on record against switching from the current method of measuring inflation to a so-called chained consumer price index.
Groups that should know better have also been confused:
http://thehill.com/...
The powerful seniors lobbying group AARP hailed the vote.
“With the adoption of Senator Sanders’ amendment, the Senate makes clear the need to protect retirees, veterans and others from an unwarranted cut to their benefits. Much more than a mere technical adjustment or a ‘tweak,’ the chained CPI would, over the next ten years, take a combined $146 billion out of the pockets of America’s veterans and seniors who are already living on tight budgets," it said in a statement.
Some senators don't seem confused, though:
http://thehill.com/...
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said he supported protecting veterans, but supported using chained CPI elsewhere.
“I support chained CPI, just like the president when it comes to entitlement reform,” he said.
The Obama budget, released after the Sanders-Harkin amendment, includes some protections for veterans, so it may have a lot more support in the Senate than people have been led to believe. Harry Reid appears open to it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
If Republicans want to trim Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, Reid said, they'd have to give on tax revenue in exchange. Asked specifically if the deal must be revenue for entitlements, he said: "Yes, and we call it mandatories."
That's the condition in the Obama proposal itself.
Fact #4 (Edit: OK, mercy -- opinion #1): Sorry, the left's threats are empty.
I've seen the AFL-CIO's promises to “fight to the death.” I've seen people threatening this and that. But the fact is the powers that be have nothing to fear from the left beyond a handful of Facebook/Twitter/blog rants and armchair outrage. It's the slacktivist era. The business-as-usual activity in the face of countless injustices and threats to democracy has already spoken volumes.
I have my doubts that politicians care all that much about votes and protracted careers, but this is a moot point, for they know they have your votes in the bag anyway, your bluster notwithstanding. Because Cruz and Orange Man.