GROVER NORQUIST: "Chained CPI Violates Taxpayer Protection Pledge"

[KoKo]

Grover Norquist: Chained CPI Violates Taxpayer Protection Pledge

Grover Norquist: Chained CPI Violates Taxpayer Protection Pledge

The Huffington Post | By Arthur Delaney Posted: 04/10/2013 12:10 pm EDT | Updated: 04/10/2013 12:53 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress who have pledged never to raise taxes will be breaking their promise if they support changing how the government measures inflation for Social Security and tax purposes.

President Barack Obama unveiled a budget proposal on Wednesday morning that would switch tax brackets and Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, which are indexed for inflation, from the current version of the Consumer Price Index to a "chained CPI," which says inflation rises more slowly. The change would reduce future benefit increases and push more taxpayers into higher brackets, a phenomenon known as "bracket creep."

Americans for Tax Reform, the advocacy group that asks lawmakers to sign a formal "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," said Tuesday that chained CPI violates the pledge.

"Chained CPI as a stand-alone measure (that is, not paired with tax relief of equal or greater size) is a tax increase and a Taxpayer Protection Pledge violation," the group said in a blog post.

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, leader of the organization, criticized the policy via Twitter on Wednesday. "Chained CPI is a very large tax hike over time," Norquist wrote. "Hence Democrat interest in same."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/grover-norquist-chained-cpi_n_3052646.html?1365610249

[Marr]

1. Wait-- doesn't he know it was a Brilliant Strategy™?!

Rope-a-dope! Twelve Dimensional Chess! A Bluff designed to make the Republicans look bad!

[sabrina 1]

3. Has he claimed his party is going to protect seniors yet? Two of his Republican colleagues have

already expressed 'shock' that the President would 'harm seniors' this way.

And now we have the unbelievable spectacle of Republicans positioning themselves as the 'party that will protect seniors from SS cuts'.

Did one of them sneak into the WH and do this?

[Volaris]

12. It's not "sneaking in" when you win by 5 million votes...

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Does this mean chained CPI won't pass?

[Katashi_itto]

6. There is the possiblity that on one side Repukes will say they defend SSA and then vote Chained CPI

through

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The possibilities seem to be limitless

The GOP will both get to portray themselves as opponents of it, and vote for it, but later. I see.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Ah

OK.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

14. You might be interested...

At Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:57 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yup. I think we got a moron for a POTUS. Hillary said "He Makes Pretty Speeches..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2653992

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Sigh. 4-2 to leave this? Are we so degraded now that it will end up 5-1? 6-0? Sad.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:00 AM, and the Jury voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: the marvelous thing about Free Speech is one can call the President a moron, no matter what party is in power.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Get a grip ....this president is many thing, moronic is not one of them.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Why would I be interested?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

18. I thought perhaps you disagreed with the assesment...

of the POTUS as a moron... It was not a personal statement directed at you.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. I don't see the need to get involved when somebody is making such bizarre statements

I let them vent with a shrug. People need different ways to let off steam, I guess.

[MH1]

25. They are setting up the argument that chained CPI already provides the revenue side of

"balanced approach".

So that whatever other revenue-increase measures Obama's budget might have, they will not accept at all, even if they fake begrudgingly accepting chained CPI.

Keep in mind when discussing chained CPI, that O's budget supposedly has offsets for the impacts to the "most vulnerable". I'll admit I haven't looked at the details so I don't know what those are. But everyone is acting as if chained CPI is standing on its own. The republicans will try to make it do that, of course, but that's (allegedly) not how it is presented in the budget.

(anyone got a good link to a summary of O's budget, including the alleged offsets to impacts on SS and SSI?)

[Buffalo Bull]

27. If they can defend SSA and throw recipients overboard...

Then they could rest easy......
Mission accomplished

[sabrina 1]

7. Of course it won't pass. It will give Republicans a short term opportunity to pretend to be

protecting SS until after the next election. The other benefit to them now is they can claim when they propose in the future, cuts to SS, that it is not something a Democrat hasn't proposed in the past.

It's a win/win for them. The door has been opened, in fact two doors and they will walk right through them, as predicted.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Ah

So it won't pass. Interesting.

Maybe later though, yeah?

[Marr]

13. Are you still hoping to frame this is a brilliant rope-a-dope?

Oh, some dopes got roped, alright.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Who me?

I'm looking at the OP and asking whether this particular provision is likely to pass. I'll leave the "framing" and other characterizations to people obsessed with the discourse on this board.

By the way, I must be the worst "rope-a-dope" framer ever:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2039135

That said, chained CPI for Social Security is bad policy, and including it in a proposal at this time is bad negotiating and bad policy. Why? The current chained CPI index (in addition to being time inflexible...needing over a year to adjust!) is simply not very good at measuring senior/disabled/fixed income spenders. It's not good at factoring in health care costs when they are 25% or greater of out of pocket. It's not good at dealing with "substitution" fixes for inelastic commodities. So, to apply it to Social Security is bad policy. Finally, it's bad policy because what they're really trying to address is a putative 2% shortfall down the road, where chained CPI would presumably cut that by .5%: the shortfall is dubious, the effect is dubious, and the inclusion of such extraneous matters on current deficit reduction is silly. With all of that being clear to me, I think chained CPI for Social Security absent fixes should be a deal breaker; however, I remain unconvinced that the effects of what is clearly a benefits cut would be near as dire as predicted here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2042045

It's becoming clear that Obama thinks the long-term viability of Social Security depends on a different way of determining COLA. I disagree strongly with the President on chained CPI. It is, indeed, a benefits cut. Moreover, it is not a good way to determine cost of living for senior populations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2098769

The opposition was loud and successful, thankfully. Chained CPI applied to Social Security is a terrible idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2644999

Chained CPI will pass for people with a specified level of non Social Security income. The question is the level, and how it is assessed over time (i.e., at 88 as opposed to at 68).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. Of course, when the Repubs ultimately vote to cut SS, they may say that they are strengthing it

for future generations.

At the present, Pelosi (D) is even making the absurd claim that Obama's proposal is not a cut. The Republicans may ultimately follow her lead and say something equally absurd. But, if it's not a cut, why did Obama propose it?

[sabrina 1]

24. Yes, they now have their arguments for cuts, given to them by the defenders of this awful

proposals, they don't even have to write their own stuff anymore. It's like the twilight zone, how did we get into this position?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. "how did we get into this position?" My thoughts are that in the ongoing class warfare, the rich

and super-rich figured out that in any meaningful election race, they can enter more than one horse.

The jockeys can wear different colors.



But the rich and the super-rich still own the horses. Whichever horse goes around the track and comes in first is still their horse.

[Katashi_itto]

4. Jeezus, Dems are so dead. Ad campaigns to kingdom come...

[Autumn]

5. Does this mean Grover Norquist will save a Democratic value?

He fucking sucks, but hey if it stops Obamas assault on SS I'll take what I can get. rec

[Volaris]

15. I won't, fuck that gnome...

if C-CPI had been a PNAC or AEI idea, this fucker would be screaming about how its the salvation of the saftey nets in America, and Dems want to kill grandma (again).

[backscatter712]

17. I think Obama's playing the "Never make a bad offer the enemy will accept" card.

Now Obama can claim he tried to compromise, while the Republicans are throwing hissy fits.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. That makes sense if you don't mind it being contrary to Ockham's razor.

Ockham's razor: when applying reason and choosing from different hypotheses, it is more logical to choose the one that makes the fewest assumptions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. I think Obama actually believes in the proposal

I also think it will pass in some form, despite the GOP song-and-dance today.

[sabrina 1]

26. The only problem is they are throwing hissy fits they say, on behalf of seniors. They are now

claiming to be shocked that the President would try to harm seniors like this and they, who are as we all know the great defenders of the elderly and the poor will not allow that to happen. So they look like the good guys to many seniors now and we look like the bad guys. I thought this strategy was supposed to make THEM look bad, not US.