Faced with these numbers, the chained-CPI benefit cut is … well, embarrassing.

[kpete]

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

The White House has said the chained CPI will save $122 billion in benefits over ten years.

here’s what isn’t being done:

Close capital gains loopholes: $174 billion.

End the Bush tax cuts at Obama’s original $250,000 level, rather than the compromise $400,000 number: $183 billion.

Cut overseas military bases by 20 percent: $200 billion.

Negotiate with drug companies: $220 billion.

Enact “Defense-friendly” Pentagon cuts: $519 billion.

End corporate tax loopholes (without being “revenue neutral,” as the President’s proposing): $1.24 trillion.

Enact a financial transaction tax on the folks who ruined our economy: $1.8 trillion.

Faced with those numbers, the chained-CPI benefit cut is … well, embarrassing.

http://www.alternet.org/10-facts-obama-doesnt-want-you-know-about-his-social-security-slashing-budget-plan?page=0%2C0
via:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/12/the-morning-plum-the-gops-policy-nihilism/

[djean111]

1. Chained CPI is a foot in the door.

It is not necessary in any way, shape, or form, but opens up cutting the Social Security safety net.
The GOP must be very pleased indeed with Obama.

[magical thyme]

12. the GOP must love him to death over this

From what I read yesterday, the Chained CPI and his Medicare cuts are deeper than what Paul Ryan had proposed.

Now the GOP can "defend" SS from the more drastic cuts to help them take back the senate in 2014 and cut SS "from the left" as in offer smaller cuts as the first in the death of a thousand cuts to come.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb move. Unless it was what you intended all along.

[Buzz Clik]

24. is that why they rejected the offer?

[DrDan]

26. of course they will reject it this early - they know they can get more

[Skittles]

40. they want more

[Dan de Lyons]

85. Yes, Chained CPI is very much a foot in the door

The sacred guarantee of retirement that keeps us all at our desks, the light at the end of the tunnel, has become pie in the sky.

Chained CPI: If something cheaper can effectively replace what you buy, then your payment is reduced accordingly.

- corn meal mush is as effective as Post Toasties.
- a Ford is as effective as a Pontiac.
- a 21" television screen is as effective as a 42" television screen.
- a walk in the park is as effective as a trip to the movies.

Chained CPI is a winch that will ratchet ever tighter.

- hamburgers from McDonalds are as effective as gourmet cookery for White House dinners?

Yah, sure.

There is no need to shrink the Social Security payouts - increase the pay-ins!

Scrap the cap. Scrap the income cap on Social Security withholding. Join your local 'scrap the cap' movement. Or start one.

Time to go on the offensive. We've lost an ally. It is up to seniors to become involved, to organize, to besiege Congress to stop playing games with Social Security.

The football must now be moved the other way.

[Lifelong Protester]

2. It's a big budget, and there must be other

ways to cut things, instead of looking like the party that wants to throw seniors, disabled folks, and vets under the bus. Thanks for posting this.

[Recursion]

3. And that's why the Progressive Caucus budget scores better on the deficit than Obama's

However, we all know we're just going to keep CR'ing things until the GOP loses the House or gains the Senate.

[Autumn]

4. Embarrassing hell. It just shows not a damned one of them are serious about their phony deficit

It shows what their priorities are.

[sendero]

20. Exactly..

..... the deficit hysteria is bullshit. It is an excuse to implement their agenda, which is to suck up the last crumbs of assets the 99% have.

[merrily]

73. On Maddow the other night, Axelrod said he was sorry that OASDI got mentioned with the deficit

because it really had nothing to do with it.

Soooo sorry, no doubt.

He had a lot to say about liberals, too, but I won't go there.

[lark]

5. It's totally embarassing and 100% unnecessary -

no matter which way you look at it. He could have "saved" SSI by pulling the rug out from under the less well off or by asking a bit more from the well off by raising or ever better yet removing the cap. HE CHOSE this way. Trojan horse or totally inept?

[merrily]

55. OASDI, not SSI. Those are two different social programs.

[patrice]

81. Please tell us how he can raise or remove the cap, when presidents don't write legislation . . .

Congress does. I'd really like to see your thoughts on how that is possible for a president.

He's not a king.

[lark]

89. He could put it in his budget, at a minimum.

Same way as he included Chained CPI decrease only his budget hurts working folks and the real answer is not to further depress the economy but by increasing the cap amount.

President Obama is a Democratic president, he should try acting like one.

[woo me with science]

6. K&R

[byeya]

7. In the USA, 400 people own as much wealth as the bottom 180 million. This is bad social

policy and can be rectified with various taxes on both income and accumulated wealth.

[markpkessinger]

53. Exactly. And this is why the President's call's for "shared sacrifice" are so morally perverse n/t

[patrice]

82. Not even for something as morally un-perverse as Universal Pre-K? Please, I'd like to know what

your scenario and timeline are for CHANGING what is wrong with the whole thing.

I don't dispute that wage-slavery is inhuman. The questions are how to CHANGE that without precipitously killing off a bunch of vulnerable people anyway and losing a lot of time and value to boot.

Right? Left? 6 of one : half-a-dozen of the other when it comes to suffering and death. Tell me that isn't true.

[ProSense]

8. Yes, it

"The White House has said the chained CPI will save $122 billion in benefits over ten years...here’s what isn’t being done:"

...is unnecessary and "embarrassing," but here is what is being done:

President Obama's Tax Proposals in his Fiscal 2014 Budget Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022659823

[kenfrequed]

13. Oh don't worry

Most of those things will be negotiated away.

[ProSense]

22. More:

Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660318

[kenfrequed]

39. I hope we manage to hold onto that.

Considering their absurd profit margins they could use a bit of beating from the 'disaster stick.'

[PA Democrat]

9. And yet we have defenders of it right here on DU.

[DrDan]

27. more than defenders . . . yesterday one claimed that this would lead

to 80 dems in the Senate. A huge bump coming from throwing seniors under the bus.

[patrice]

79. May I have the link to that, please? I need to see who is saying such a fucked-up thing. nt

[markpkessinger]

83. Here it is . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022651034

[patrice]

84. Thanks.

[Rex]

30. I question their intention and/or intelligence

to get past the RAH RAH or agenda they are pushing and see this is harmful and we don't need it.

[AzDar]

10. Unconscionable.

[myrna minx]

11. Yet, the narrative is now shifting to that it's now a good thing

that it's a really a boon to seniors, using *starvation* as our baseline. What a proposal!

[99Forever]

14. Embarrassing is putting it mildly.

It's downright evil.

[HughBeaumont]

15. All because "I'm a-gonner be rich sumday whooooeeee!"

Anything that gets out of harming our precious, cherished, heroic, patriotic, extremely productive and hardest working wealthy. The United State of Corpmerica, Inc. Hope you fuckers are proud of yourselves. Keep hiding behind your police and military.

[kentuck]

16. What's embarrassing is that you cannot find one Democrat to say it...

I have no idea why?

[Life Long Dem]

45. Because CPI adjustments have been done before

Jimmy Carter did the same thing in 1977.

"Carter" made an adjustment to the CPI in "1977". The House, Senate, and Presidency, were all controlled by Democrats.

Lawrence O'Donnell explained it all last night, "been there and done that".
Reagan, Clinton. and Nixon as well.

The sky is not falling.

[Chisox08]

51. Did Carter win the 1980 election?

[Life Long Dem]

52. Obama doesn't have another term to win

[merrily]

61. Yes, he took care of himself nicely. But, there are quite a few other Dems who do have other terms

they would very much like to win.

[Life Long Dem]

64. Never really liked Hillary anyway

[merrily]

65. I mean both Houses of Congress, Governorships, etc.

[Life Long Dem]

67. With 2014 around the corner, it's time to get out the vote. n/t

[merrily]

68. Tell Obama.

[Life Long Dem]

69. Yeah Obama can help GOTV too. n/t

[merrily]

70. Worked great in 2010. Set records in fact.

[Life Long Dem]

72. Obama can handle it.

As he has for most of his Presidency.

[merrily]

74. Weve gone full circle. I've already posted that he took care of himself nicely

by using the sequester to defer all this stuff until after his re-election, but other people still have to run again.

But, of course he can handle it. He is a multimillionaire looking forward to being an even bigger multi millionaire, like Clinton, after he left office. 2013 will soon be a distant memory for him. Not so much for other Democrats who will have to run soon, though. Especially the few who are not also millionaires.

[merrily]

60. Explained, my ass Lawrence O'Donnell spun shit like he was a human centrifuge.

The guy who self identifies as a Socialist. Pure shill.

[CTyankee]

88. That was a long time ago. We are dealing with "now."

Nobody could look around corners back then. Maybe some people knew we were heading for a demographic that would make our health care insurance system unsustainable, but I sure didn't. We thought "socialized medicine" was part of a Communist plot to take away our health care and prided ourselves on having the "best health care in the world." We had no idea that the course of our private health care insurance would bring disaster upon our society.

Our failure to take the public option route for health care has brought us to this awful place. When the Dem candidates for President were running in the 08 primary, every single one of their health care plans included some version of the public option. What the hell happened?

I think we should be VERY worried.

[patrice]

80. Obviously, because jobs and childcare are in the SAME package. nt

[progressoid]

17. FuckinA

[grahamhgreen]

18. Embarrasing? Vicious.

[dkf]

19. Is that the cost and revenue impact of chained CPI throughut the entire Federal structure?

This proposal is broader than just Social Security. Anytime the code uses Inflation adjustments they are proposing using this chained CPI.

Grover Norquist is complaining that its a tax increase because it results in bracket creep.

Grover Norquist: Chained CPI Violates Taxpayer Protection Pledge

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.

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

[JDPriestly]

29. Do you think it could have the effect of, at least internally,

revaluing our currency?

I'm not sure how that would work. But, it would affect so many measures across the economy, that it seems to me it might result in a revaluation somehow. I have to think this through to figure out just what it would do. But when you think about the vast number of people and transactions that could be affected, it is mind-boggling.

I lived through a currency revaluation or at least the aftermath of it under De Gaulle in France in 1965-66. It was the real thing. That was at least clear. People understood that an old Franc was not the same as a new one in terms of value. But, over time, this change could really have a detrimental effect on our economy it seems to me.

I do not live in a wealthy area. A lot of people pay with food stamps in my local grocery store. What if they get less value in their food stamps? That could affect the volume of business in our local market. A relatively small cut on top of all the cuts that have already taken place at the state level in welfare and other forms of aid for the poor could have quite an effect on neighborhoods that are struggling.

You cannot cut from the income of the masses of people who are retired or disabled or working for low pay without affecting the middle class.

Poverty is creeping upward in our society. The only thing that is trickling down is contempt.

[dkf]

32. That is an interesting question. I wonder if its part of financial repression.

[Life Long Dem]

46. Grover Norquist?

Good source!

[whatchamacallit]

21. Says it all

A nation of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. Embarrassing, except to the shameless rich and the shameless stupid.

When anyone defends this, which are they?

[JDPriestly]

25. K&R. Thanks for posting this.

Chained CPI is totally unnecessary and irrelevant to the most important problem of our country, the problem that is linked as a cause to every other problem we have from climate change to education to ubiquity of bad teeth among most Americans -- the exaggerated disparity in the incomes of the rich and everybody else.

[Life Long Dem]

48. It's necessary before 20 years

20 years can come fast. Then we're really screwed. Goodbye SS.

I don't think we can take the chance of letting any Republican in office to fix it. If they win a few terms then it could be too late.

Here's Dick Durbin talking about this. This was back in November of last year.

"As I learned in 1983, putting off a challenge until the last minute makes the task much harder to achieve. However, if we make modest changes in the near future to ensure 75 years of solvency in Social Security, we can phase in adjustments in a responsible way that protects current beneficiaries and ensures the program will remain a key part of the safety net for future generations.

The best way to approach this is to create a commission, similar to the Simpson-Bowles deficit panel, charged with preparing a long-term strategy on Social Security. Then bring it to the Congress next year for a debate and a vote.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is the Senate assistant majority leader."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/27/social-security-dick-durbin/1730633/

[merrily]

63. No, it's never necessary. There are other cuts that could be made and

revenues that can be obtained.

Durbin of Obama's home state has turned himself into even more of a joke than he was before Obama took office.

[tomp]

86. well, if dick durbin said it, it must be true. nt

[Rex]

28. You are going to hurt the 5 peoples feelings here

on DU that got a pony, with that OP.

[Myrina]

31. If it isn't obvious to EVERYONE now why POTUS is offering this ...

... it never, ever will be. Sigh.

[valerief]

33. Excellent summary of how they're keeping us down. nt

[gaspee]

34. Pretty much sums it up

They're trying to take away from the bottom of the triangle - the tiny sliver at the bottom where 100 bucks spread out over millions of people doesn't seem like anything to people who have never had to roll pennies to eat or put gas in their car two bucks at a time.

If they take from where the money really is, then they are confronting the people who own them instead of kicking people with no power.

It's always been this way but I have hope that in this era when we don't need them to talk to each other, when we can organize and use our numbers for power - I have hope that the way society has always been (the leeches sucking off the masses) can actually change.

[frylock]

35. knr

[G_j]

36. K&R !

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. I'm afraid I think that's laughable.

Some of those are predictable, sure - if you decide to spend $200 billion less on overseas military bases, you'll spend $200 million less (although the outcome is less predictable, and some of those savings may show up elsewhere as costs).

But to present a figure for the savings from "ending corporate tax loopholes" or "Negotiate with drug companies" without *smothering* it in words like "predicted" and "estimated" and "plus or minus many percent" is just absurd.

To do them justice, they do appear to have a source *at the root of* most of those claims. But their usage of and reporting of those sources, and the unsupported deductions they draw from them, is nearly as bad as just making stuff up.

[truedelphi]

42. According to an article that was up last month

over at "The Hill" - there was a bill put together to start the negotiating of drug prices just last month.

And the figure quoted in that article is 156 billions in savings.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/287607-medicare-would-negotiate-drug-prices-under-dem-bill
Medicare would negotiate drug prices under Dem bill
By Elise Viebeck - 03/12/13 12:23 PM ET

A new bill from Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) would require federal officials to negotiate drug prices in Medicare, a move that could spell big savings for the federal budget.

Welch estimated Tuesday that his Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act would save up to $156 billion over ten years. He cited the Department of Veterans Affairs, which already bargains for lower prices for commonly prescribed drugs.

"It's just plain common sense that the federal government should put its enormous purchasing power to work to get a better deal on Medicare prescription drugs," Welch said in a statement.

[bocephus0706]

38. Concidering the make up of Congress - your dream will be just that - a dream

[WillyT]

41. HUGE K & R !!!

[carolinayellowdog]

43. $183 billion to the 250k-400k crowd, $122 billion from Social Security

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)

is infuriating, not embarrassing. They have to take from the poor what they just gave to the rich, while pretending they didn't want to.

[merrily]

66. Seniors are not the only ones who get OASDI.

[Curmudgeoness]

44. And every penny of that $122 billion comes out of the beneficiaries hides.

When you have a program with 1% overhead, there is no way to cut without affecting the people who will be receiving Social Security. All the savings are now money that you will not get in the future.

I have a better idea.....why don't we just start killing off a bunch of old people to save all that money. That will work too.

[Octafish]

47. Tax Offshore Wealth Sitting In First World Banks

On My Mind

Tax Offshore Wealth Sitting In First World Banks

James S. Henry
07.01.10, 09:00 AM EDT
Forbes Magazine dated July 19, 2010

Let's tax offshore private wealth.

How can we get the world's wealthiest scoundrels--arms dealers, dictators, drug barons, tax evaders--to help us pay for the soaring costs of deficits, disaster relief, climate change and development? Simple: Levy a modest withholding tax on untaxed private offshore loot.

Many aboveground economies around the world are struggling, but the economic underground is booming. By my estimate, there is $15 trillion to $20 trillion in private wealth sitting offshore in bank accounts, brokerage accounts and hedge fund portfolios, completely untaxed.

Much offshore wealth derives from capital flight and the proceeds of past and present tax evasion. Another source is crime. At least a third comes from developing countries--more than their outstanding net foreign debt.

This wealth is concentrated. Nearly half of it is owned by 91,000 people--0.001% of the world's population. Ninety-five percent is owned by the planet's wealthiest 10 million people.

Let's tax it. The pile of offshore anonymous loot is now large enough so that even a very modest 0.5% wealth tax would yield at least $75 billion a year.

SNIP...

Is it feasible? Yes. The majority of offshore wealth is managed by 50 banks. As of September 2009 these banks accounted for $10.8 trillion of offshore assets--72% of the industry's total. The busiest 10 of them manage 40%.

CONTINUED....

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0719/opinions-taxation-tax-havens-banking-on-my-mind.html

Banksters Rule!



Yeah, see. Taxes are for the little people, see.

[geckosfeet]

49. Go where the money is. I say tax the rich fuckers.

[Hoyt]

54. I tend to agree, but there's not enough money there to solve everything.

[merrily]

57. Further depriving the most vulnerable is not the solution.

[reformist2]

58. Yes there is enough money. The rich have over $64 trillion in wealth.

The average annual return on that wealth alone is enough to make Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security fully solvent forever.

========

2012 US Household Net Worth: $64.8 trillion (3Q 2012 Federal Reserve 'Flow of Funds' Report)

Flow of Funds report (Household Net Worth figures are in the Summary Statistics section at the beginning, and then in detail in one of the tables at the end - search for 'Balance Sheet of Households'): http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf

[Hoyt]

76. I'm fine with confiscating that wealth, although I doubt it will be worth much if we do that.

[geckosfeet]

59. Not sure I agree. But we can always sell a few tanks, planes, ships and missles.

If that doesn't raise enough money to keep grannies $1000 a month SS checks flowing then we need to rent out our military to the highest bidders.




Oh.





Shit.

[Hoyt]

75. Don't disagree with that. But until we do something like that, we are left with the choices at Hand

Sitting around doing nothing is no longer an option unless we want youngsters to go jobless, education to deteriorate further, etc.

[Teamster Jeff]

50. Nothing gets done without corporate approval

Once that fact is accepted everything else falls into place.

[dflprincess]

56. Especially as Social Security does not contribute to the debt

but all those other programs do.

[sabrina 1]

62. There is only way to view this. They are trying to pay the gambling and war debts they ran up off

off the backs of the most needy, the elderly, disabled, dependent children and the poor.

It is IMMORAL, but then the president doesn't have a problem with 'immoral' as he made clear when he tried to deflect from Wall St crimes by claiming they were not 'criminal', just 'immoral'. Really? Way to go defending those who destroyed the country while attempting to force those who made this country through their honest work and contributions in our volunteer fire depts etc, to pay for the 'immorality' of his Wall St friends.

He will be rewarded, the job of president appears to be to keep the rabble at bay while protecting the Wall St criminals and those who do so, which appear to be all of them these days, end up obscenely wealthy.

So iow, working for the people doesn't pay very well. But working for Wall St. guarantees a life of obscene wealth.

What would you do?

We know what our leaders' choice has been.

[tomp]

87. keeping the rabble at bay....

....that's it in a nutshell, and which has been obvious to me since i became aware of politics in the 60's. amazing how many can't see what is right in front of their eyes and continue to buy into the two party game.

[ReRe]

71. What cpi doesn't do!

K&R

[Newest Reality]

77. There are

many bank accounts that need some 'vestigatin' out there. LOTS of revenue, fines, confiscations to be had. Probably in the trillions.

The IRS hits us with a sledge hammer, right? Banks foreclose on us, ey?

[tex-wyo-dem]

78. Well, don't ya know...

It's much more important to make sure the wealthy "job creators" and corporations aren't burdened with higher (or in some cases, any) taxes (they might just run away to another country or something) and that the MIC feeding trough stays nice and full than to assure millions of "moocher" seniors have a roof over their head, food in their belly and decent medical coverage. Wouldn't want to enable moocher behavior by "rewarding it with handouts, now would we