Krugman on Obama proposing chained CPI.

[DanTex]

Sigh. So Obama is going with the “chained CPI” thing in his latest proposal — changing the price index used for Social Security cost adjustments. This is, purely and simply, a benefit cut.

Does it make sense in policy terms? No. First of all, there is no reason to believe that the chained index is a better measure of inflation facing seniors than the standard CPI. It’s true that the standard measure arguably understates inflation for the typical household — but seniors have a different consumption basket from the young, one that includes more medical expenses, and probably face true inflation that’s higher, not lower, than the official measure.

Anyway, it’s not as if the current level of real benefits has any sacred significance. The truth — although you’ll never hear this in Serious circles — is that we really should be increasing SS benefits. Why? Because the shift from defined-benefit pensions to defined contribution, the rise of the 401(k), has been a bust, and many older Americans will soon find themselves in dire straits. SS is the last defined-benefit pension still standing — thank you, Nancy Pelosi, for standing up to Bush — and should be strengthened, not weakened.

So what’s this about? The answer, I fear, is that Obama is still trying to win over the Serious People, by showing that he’s willing to do what they consider Serious — which just about always means sticking it to the poor and the middle class. The idea is that they will finally drop the false equivalence, and admit that he’s reasonable while the GOP is mean-spirited and crazy.

...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/desperately-seeking-serious-approval/

[Newest Reality]

1. Why not

devote ourselves to appeals to the most successful of the barbarians and continue to pretend we are civilized?

If we can get over that, maybe we can try civilization someday because, even though there are the same kinds of humans behind an even more awesome mask and a more beautiful and elaborate facade, the undercurrent and agenda is really not much different than ages ago.

But let's pretend. Let's ignore the cognitive dissonance that is ringing like a huge, iron bell in our ears. Let's have some hope because, well it always makes a big difference and some how brings something better someday, maybe.

[CincyDem]

2. I love me some BHO, but...

...it's unfortunate that once again, in the name of playing some multi-dimensional chess with strategies that defy mere mortals, the best president this country has ever elected has somehow decided that being the Grand Compromiser is more important than being the Grand Protector of the Population.

It worries me to think that someday, our great great grandchildren will look back and see more democratic impact from LBJ than BHO.

And it disappoints me to think he will leave office with as much potential as he entered - without turning enough of that potential into real, century lasting change.

[Demo_Chris]

3. The best president? Are you freaking kidding? nt

[CincyDem]

5. Best in terms of potential...

...I think so. Best in terms of actual impact - yeah, you're right - probably not. I think history will look back on these eight year wistfully longing for what could have been.

[Jakes Progress]

35. Ineffectual

Potential is in the eyes of the beholder. He lacked experience, knowledge of how government worked, perception about who to trust, skill to do the job.

You are right that he will be seen as a popular guy who got little done. (That is, if a progressive agenda was what he wanted. That seems to be up for debate.)

[CincyDem]

37. And...

...he'll be remembered as a damn fine lookin' guy.

Opps - didn't mean to mention looks before skills. That could get a guy in trouble around here these days.

[DonCoquixote]

59. sigh

frankly, experience in goverment was a bad thing in 2008. If Hillary got elected, we would have already been at this point back in 2010, since she knew people could not pull the "I can vote against that black man and get all the money I want no matter how stupid I am" GOP. Obama may be wanting an agressive streak, but frankly, knowledge of how washignton works, means more of the same results that favor washington. We need someone who will NOT listen to the Beltway talking heads. You annot lie with dogs and wonder why you have fleas.

[Bake]

69. And in related news, FDR just rolled over in his grave.

And asked Abe Lincoln, "Are you f***ing KIDDING ME???"



Bake

[KoKo]

4. It seems his own legacy is more important than the people who voted

for him's own welfare, then.

Krugman seems to be saying he wants to be seen and remembered as "The Great Compromiser" to impress the "serious people." Who ARE these "Serious People" if they aren't the Dem Voters who put him in office to follow Democratic Policies and his Campaign Promises?

[Myrina]

10. If he stops & thinks about it ...

... his legacy is going to be thousands more poor/marginalized families without healthcare, food, a good public education, decent wages, safe neighborhoods or environmental safety ... exchanged for the most massive corporate profits & biggest environmental disasters in the history of the world.

[loudsue]

28. Someone needs to start a thread about the republican strategy of blaming loss of social security

benefits on the dems (and Obama) once this is done. And we all need to call our congress critters and let them know the republicans are going to USE THIS to win for the next 10 election cycles. This will be the death knell to democrats and the party as a whole, forever.

[Doctor_J]

62. His legacy will be that of a weak, ineffectual failure

and it will be well-deserved.

[upaloopa]

33. Obama will never measure up to LBJ and LBJ wasn't such a good president

supporting the Vietnam war.
LBJ got his opposition to vote for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
LBJ wanted to fight a war on poverty but he let the war on Communism get in the way.
Obama will never stand up to his opposition as LBJ did when he said we should do something because it is the right thing to do.

[duffyduff]

38. You have GOT to be kidding

Obama is trying very, very hard to be the WORST president in American history.

[DonCoquixote]

58. and he willm still lag behind w

w will stand for centuries

[ProSense]

6. The end:

Oh, and wanna bet that Republicans soon start running ads saying that Obama wants to cut your Social Security?

Sure, and they'll do it while demanding the destruction of Social Security.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Yup, and will make hay too which is part of why the entire logic is beyond foolish

[Sekhmets Daughter]

9. Exactly!

It makes me crazy that there is no one in this administration who understands how the game is played!

[Fumesucker]

13. I disagree, I think they know *exactly* how the game is played n/t

[Sekhmets Daughter]

15. Ah ha...so you don't see this

as walking into a well laid trap...but rather a hoaxing of the voters? You could be right.... Sad that the first African American president could go down in history as the worst of the modern era...if you are, indeed correct.

[Fumesucker]

16. Obama is probably the most brilliant politician I've seen in my adult lifetime

A black man named Barack Hussein Obama won the presidency, utterly unprecedented. To pretend that he is incompetent at politics is self-delusion on a nearly unfathomable scale.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

20. I don't know...

I hope you are correct...I do agree he is the best politician to come down the pike in a long time....Whether he will prove to be the best or even a good president, remains to be seen. I have been a donor since he won the primary in '08.... What you find unfathomable, I call a healthy sense of skepticism.

[hfojvt]

23. But he hasn't created a win

for the whole party. The party that he leads, got shelled in 2010, and didn't make up that much in 2012.

What happens in 2014?

Further, given the unwarranted assumption that Obama is even on our side, or meant the things he said in the primary, then his terms has been a series of losses.

He didn't get a big enough stimulus.
He didn't get a 2nd round of stimulus.
He didn't make the "making work pay" credit permanent.
In spite of two automatic expiration dates, 85% of the Bush tax cuts are permanent

He knows how to win elections for himself, although he had people like me helping him in all three of his Presidential elections.

But otherwise, he does not win a lot.

[CrispyQ]

34. This: He knows how to win elections for himself

If CO hadn't been a swing state I would have voted green in November.

[truebrit71]

25. He's great at campaigning and making speeches, but as for the actual governing..not so much...

His politics from day one was to compromise with people whose own policy was nothing short of scorched-earth...

And please don't give me that ninth-level ninja chess bullshit either, as he has made it perfectly clear that he is incapable of negotiating his way out of a dark room with a flash-light and directions without first offering to give up the torch, destroy the map, and put on a blindfold...

[Fumesucker]

31. I think he knows exactly what he's doing and is moving in the direction he wishes to go

And I'm one of those who mocks the 11D chess meme, the last panel of this cartoon says it all as far as I'm concerned.

[noiretextatique]

56. +1000

“None so blind as those that will not see.”

[NoMoreWarNow]

26. I don't know-- first of all, he's had a lot of luck

in timing and his opponents. Second, there is also the idea that he was selected by the powers that be-- he did rocket from obscurity and he had a lot of help.

Personally, I think he is a tool of the PTB.

[duffyduff]

39. Keep up with the delusional beliefs

Look at his record on public education, which is far, far worse than anything Bush EVER proposed, and then come back to me and tell me about his "brilliance."

There is nothing "brilliant" about being a willing tool for the banksters and billionaires.

[byeya]

48. Not an environmentalist by a long shot either.

[bigtree]

65. I think he could have used more seasoning as a legislator

. . . he's made repeated assumptions that he's above the fights and stands our rank and file progressives have fought and defended for decades. He said in his first primary that he wanted to put all of those squabbles behind him and 'move forward.' That assumed that all legislators were just being petty or merely political in their obstinacy. I happen to believe that Democrats I came into politics watching and supporting were fighting for important principles and values which hang on threads of influence and some genuine concern. President Obama is facing the conflict between his 'urgency of now' and Congress' ability and intention to have their own often diverse and disparate way. I'm not sure he appreciates that to the degree that he might or should.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. Do you have a point?

[loudsue]

24. And we need to inform ALL of the dems in congress that THIS is PRECISELY what will happen

to them come election time. Republicans will ride this thing all the way through the next 10 election cycles....even AFTER Jeb Bush becomes the next president.

This is political suicide for ALL the dems, if this happens during a democratic presidency.

[dsc]

67. did you sleep during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns

they did the exact, precise same thing with Medicare and thanks to 'fact' checkers such as Kessler at the Post they got away with it in 2010 and Congressionally did so again in 2012.

[Larkspur]

8. Wall Streeters are the only ones willing to pay big bucks for speaking gigs after Obama

completes his 2nd term as President. That is what this is all about.

This obsession with cutting SS really pissed me off about Obama, whose Admin has done NOTHING about prosecuting the banksters who drove this nation into an economic ditch. Obama wants seniors to pay for these banksters sins and for their million dollar bonuses. In exchange Obama will be hired to speak to the banksters for lots of money.

Disgusting!!!!

[Ligyron]

19. You nailed it.

I just wonder at what point and by whom he was given the message. Was he always willing or was he turned?

I wanted, (and still want to believe) that he's playing some type of 9 dimensional chess game, but reality is sinking in, and I'm starting to think a lot of people on here are right about this.

Depressing since other than sending him (and our Representatives) e-mail no one will read, there doesn't seem to be a lot one can do at this point.

[duffyduff]

40. It was ALWAYS there for people to see, but they refused to do it

They were too enthralled with the media narrative of "history being made" to seriously look at his far-right beliefs.

[AzDar]

12. K & R

[bananas]

14. "sticking it to the poor and the middle class" - turning the 1% into the 0.1%, and the 99% into the

99.9%.

[mn9driver]

17. It's very important to de-energize the base.

If the Dems actually took control of the House and widened control of the Senate in 2014, explaining why they can't actually do anything progressive would get really complicated.

The people might begin to suspect that our government is not what we think it is.

[NoMoreWarNow]

27. indeed-- we wouldn't people thinking that, would we?

[CrispyQ]

43. Our government is a sham. Our representatives are owned by the corporations.

Too few of our fellow citizens are engaged.

The phones of every member of congress should be ringing off the hook. The servers should crash from the number of incoming emails. I'm as bad as anyone. I try to write once a week, but I let that slide all too often. Also, a few letters or a few calls, don't make much difference. They vote the way they want - they vote for what will increase their campaign account the most. Until the People inundate Congress with calls, emails & letters, I don't see anything changing. I can't remember being so disgusted with the political system as I am now. And the worse thing is that I don't see a path for change. Those who can implement the changes we so desperately need, are the very ones who benefit from the status quo.

[Marr]

18. Krugman gives Obama too much credit.

I don't think Obama is pushing SS cuts to win approval from the Serious People©.

He's just a Third Wayer, and chained CPI has been one of their stated goals for a long time. Third Way types think the business community needs more, and the working class and poor need to 'eat their vegetables' and get less. It's as simple as that.

[NoMoreWarNow]

32. perhaps

but it's odd how someone who talks such a good game and can sound like such a good liberal can do this. And further, it's pretty clear he's not going to get serious criticism from the mainstream media and pundits over this.

[duffyduff]

41. He WANTS to gut Social Security

He is a far right politician and shouldn't even have been seriously considered for the presidency in the first place.

The mistake of Democratic voters to have nominated him is now coming back to haunt them.

[JDPriestly]

21. Excellent.

And Krugman, you'll win your bet. Republicans will start running ads stating that Obama wants to cut our Social Security.

They'd be fools if they didn't, and Obama is a fool to suggest the cuts. Sorry, Obama fans, but this was a foolish thing to do.

I'd like to know how many people who are over 65 are employed in the White House (other than civil servants protected by law and political appointees). In fact, I'd like to know how many people who are not civil servants protected by law, elected officials or political appointees are working in our government in D.C.

There may be some judges -- but they are either elected or appointed.

[duffyduff]

44. He isn't "brilliant"--he's a dolt n/t

[JDPriestly]

45. Why do you disagree with him?

What are your facts and what is your reasoning?

On DU, people are expected to defend their ideas. That's why this is such a great place.

So, precisely what is your thinking about Krugman. Why don't you like him?

[G_j]

22. being "serious"

means sticking it to the poor and the middle class.


Yep

[truebrit71]

30. Sounds pretty fucking "serious" to me...

....further proof that 'trickle-down' is nothing more than the poor and middle class getting pissed on by the rich...

[patrice]

29. Fuck 2014 & 16.

[CrispyQ]

51. mn9driver nailed it up above in post #17.

Politicians play good cop/bad cop with The People, hoping we won't notice that they all serve the dirty banksters.

[patrice]

52. I know, I know. I'm playing to THEIR hand. I'm just running out of tough.

[CrispyQ]

53. Me too.

It's working. They want us demoralized & not go to the polls - fine. I'll stay home, cuz this lesser of two evils shit isn't working for me. I voted for Obama in November because CO was a swing state & the repub men disgusted me beyond belief with their talk of legitimate rape.

I don't have a voice in this government. This is why so many people don't vote.

[patrice]

55. I'm not saying what I will do one way or the other, because once you become a known-quantity on

any of the spreadsheets, you become irrelevant: irrelevant to some because you're already pro-________________________ and irrelevant to others because you're already anti-__________________________ . You're already a known factor and the only thing they are really interested in is "undecideds" (That's why so many people claim to be "independents" - even though they usually are not!)

I may not have enough money to be significant, but I do have one thing that I can protect whatever little value there is left in it: me, what I will/won't work for, or donate to, and how I will/won't vote.

The minute you surrender any of that information about yourself, no one cares what you think, want, or need. I have worked around organizers and staffers a lot and they have absolutely no interest in convincing anyone who is against them/their candidate/their issue. It actually works against what they have to do, which is about numbers of persons in a "democracy". Volunteers are explicitly told to move on, don't debate, keep moving because we're only looking for those who agree with us but we don't know them yet. It's politics, it runs on number. Period. Once you're a known number, the only other thing that matters is what will you volunteer to do or donate. Policy is irrelevant except in legislative votes themselves, which is still at least theoretically affected by numbers of persons, but is more concretely affected by corporate personhood at present.

Based on Gaming Theory: I think saying you won't vote ____________________ actually insures the opposite of what you want. Because one advertises how s/he is going to vote, those opposed to you know that it isn't necessary to compromise on your issue for your vote and those of anyone like you, because they already won with you on your issue that they oppose because you are telling them so by telling them how you're going to vote or not vote, so all they have to do is wait, until things change. Imagine what would happen if people played poker by revealing all of their cards; that's what saying things about how you will/won't vote and what you will/won't do affects the outcome of political issues. This is also why there is no authentic Left in the USA and why the Green Party will never get a foothold short of utter physical and political disaster and suffering and death in the USA (and even then, that foothold will probably be something more like one toe hold).

Read up on gaming theory a little. Showing your hand results in the opposite of what you might think it does, whatever assets you have will be used by those who don't show their hands.

[Jakes Progress]

36. Sigh. Just imagine a president

who was smart enough to listen to the smart people - like Krugman.

[hedda_foil]

63. We had one. He died in 1945.

RIP FDR.

[patrice]

42. The trade-off is going to be KXL. It will be denied. & The payoff on that will be campaign workers,

young people with political ambitions from across the full political spectrum.

....................................

It's been generational war all along.

Can't say that I feel like an idiot; I knew these possibilities were there all along. I just thought it would work out differently.

Apparently, BO does think he's Lincoln, freeing the slaves from the tyranny of the Boomers and we're part of the body count.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Sadly, Krugman is spot-on, I suspect. Down to the last sentence.

I'm not hugely surprised about the Chained CPI thing, but I think it's a mistake.

[watoos]

47. One big problem;

Serious people aren't going to be convinced because the MSM is corporate controlled and controls the narrative.
The narrative right now should be Jobs, instead it is the deficit. Let Cons shut down the gvt. enough compromise.

[patrice]

49. Agree 100%. Whatever mistakes anyone has made, during these financial changes, could be dealt with

if jobs weren't so completely screwed in every way.

[Babel_17]

50. I've never been a huge proponent of trying to engage the Republicans in 3D chess but

I'll hold out hope for the best of a bad situation. I hope, with only a modicum of reasons, Obama is thinking that the majority of Republicans won't go along with tax cuts and so his bargaining position will improve and then he'll look ok even though he then forever yanks SS off the bargaining table.

It never should have been on the table and that's the topic of another discussion.

Well, in a way we true Democrats are a fourth dimensional chess piece. We were never seen to be on the board but at the critical moment we appear, as we knew we would, and by our numbers and our reasoned arguments we checkmate those who want to regressively diminish one of the greatest and most progressive systems our nation has ever seen.

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. We need to raise the cap and raise benefits

Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to raise the cap in 2011, but I guess it didn't go anywhere.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. "The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same."

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same." Marie Beyle (aka Stendahl)

[Beartracks]

60. "willing to do what they consider Serious"

Why is it everyone in D.C. thinks that to make the "tough decisions" means to make things tough on the poor, the defenseless, and the middle class? C'mon guys, make a REALLY tough decision: raise taxes on your donors so that the REST of America doesn't get shafted. The economy really is trickle up, you know.

============

[quaker bill]

61. the rise of the 401(k), has been a bust.

One of the small handful of smart financial moves I have made in my life was moving to job 20 years ago with a smaller salary that offered a defined benefit pension, instead of higher pay with a 401K. I thin invested the tiny amount I could, post tax, in the market. The cool thing there is that the money in the market is completely unrestricted. I can pull it out without penalty if I think the market is unsafe or I just need it.

At the end of the Clinton admin, I pulled a good slice out of the post tax investments out and bought another defined benefit, a pre-paid college tuition plan for my kid. When my kid ended up going to college in 2009, the money would have been gone, if I had left it in the market.

I do not think the republicans will bite.

[Janecita]

64. Time to vote for the Green Party

Let's elect people that truly represent us, it's beyond me why we keep on electing corporation owned politicians into office! We need a third party, unfortunately the Democratic Party has become a milder version of the GOP.

[Cleita]

66. Krugman always making sense when no one else is. n/t

[dsc]

68. and proof Krugman is right

No doubt there would be political opposition. But it’s a good sign that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has publicly embraced this kind of Medicare reorganization. So far, Mr. Obama has not — though he has offered other ideas, such as increasing premiums on upper-income beneficiaries, that could work in tandem with the combination of Parts A and B.

The White House view of entitlement reform in general, and Medicare reform specifically, is that it is to be traded for Republican agreement to higher taxes. No doubt the GOP has to move on that front as well. But it would be a badge of leadership for Mr. Obama to take the lead on this idea, rather than ceding it to Mr. Cantor — perhaps by including a version in his forthcoming budget plan. If Medicare reform is in the national interest, and it is, it’s up to the president to say so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-must-take-the-lead-on-medicare-reform/2013/04/04/64f35624-9d5b-11e2-a2db-efc5298a95e1_story.html

[ReRe]

70. All along the way...

... I have said, "I'll give him one more chance. I'll give him one more chance." "Well, he's done some good things." Making excuses for him. But after this slick named "chained-cpi" reverse-Robin Hood business with Social Security, not to mention the ominous sounding "fiscal cliff" business that cast a cloud over the entire holiday season for everyone in this country, I'm plum out of excuses. And it is reverse-Robin Hood, as Social Security did not bankrupt this country. Main Street is not responsible for the effing deficit in this country. That's like the next door neighbor shooting all his windows out and telling all the neighbors they are going to have to pay for it. WTF? Next up on the agenda is the XL Pipeline from Hell and the sovereignty-blowing new-world-order TPP trade deal.

[nineteen50]

71. We should

CPI military spending and Congressional pay.

[redqueen]

72. "wanna bet that Republicans..start running ads saying that Obama wants to cut your Social Security?"

K&R