Obama destroyed Chained CPI and I don't understand why we're not celebrating

[TekGryphon]

How do the Republicans get their bullshit legislation passed? Let's look at the Individual Mandate. Championed by Republican think tanks for DECADES, it was never discussed in the media and was never placed in the spotlight. Republicans waited until the Affordable Care Act negotiations were behind closed doors and insisted that it be the payment driver. Without it negotiations were a no-go, regardless of what some revisionists want to claim.

Now let's look at Chained CPI. That is exactly what Republicans were hoping to do again. Get Obama's budget out, take their time attacking it for being extremist socialism, wait until they got behind closed doors, and slide in the Chained CPI.

Instead, Obama destroyed Chained CPI.

He put it in his own budget, knowing full well that budget had a 0% chance of being passed, and loudly proclaimed it a painful but necessary compromise that Republicans insisted on.

The day that budget came out I shouted with glee. Chained CPI was now in the spotlight. Everyone was talking about it. Democrats were on TV bashing it for it's immorality and bad economics. Tea Party Republicans (much to the horror of their aristocrat masters) were bashing it because they're too stupid to do anything else. Even the media couldn't find anyone to play devil's advocate on it and so couldn't play their usual false equivalency game.

Obama did the one thing all the moralizing by Bernie Sanders and all the rational economic preaching by Paul Krugman couldn't do: he got the entire US talking about Chained CPI. It's now dead, and Republicans can't touch it with a 10-foot poll.

It was win/win/lose for him.

Win because he got Chained CPI in the spotlight.

Win because he got to talk about raising revenues in comparison.

Lose because some Democrats decided that, instead of helping destroy Chained CPI, they'd rather undermine Obama and the Democrats by pushing some ridiculous narrative that Obama WANTED Chained CPI and he put it in for his Wall Street masters.

[neverforget]

1. If that's the case, why not put tax cuts for the wealthy, raise the retirement age to 70

on the table too? Republicans want those too.

[TekGryphon]

3. America still hasn't figured out the utter idiocy of supply-side economics...

... many moderates would actually support tax cuts for the wealthy even after 30 years of utter failure.

Raising the retirement age still needs better messaging to fight. We've almost won it, thanks to systemic unemployment issues that raising the retirement age would exacerbate, but we're still not quite there. Almost, though. If he has the balls to try this trick again, I wouldn't mind seeing him destroy this issue the same way in 2015.

Chained CPI, a direct cut to the benefits that seniors have worked their life for, is something that neither Democrats, Independents, or moderate Republicans want. It's an idea that ONLY resonates in the minds of the aristocrats.

It was the perfect Republican idea to trot out as a compromise and let the US take a good long look at.

[freshwest]

5. Thanks for the OP, I felt it was like the Sequester. They wanted him to keep taxes down.

The GOP was forced to give Nordquist the finger. After all these years of blind allegiance to him and the Koches. The battle is by no means over, though.

[TekGryphon]

7. He got a lot more out of the sequester than...

... getting Norquist dropped. He got the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich destroyed, and got a huge wave of Independent support as Republicans latched onto untenable positions in the face of "reasonable compromise".

That same "reasonable compromise" we're seeing today is going to hurt the Republicans just as bad as it did then. Chained CPI is dead, and the budget negotiations haven't even begun.

[freshwest]

11. Agree with you 100%, just didn't have time to go into details. Welcome to DU!

[bhikkhu]

22. He also got a massive cut in defence spending

which is hardly mentioned then or now. If I had one pipe dream I didn't think I was likely to see, or one unlikely wish that might come out of the last election, it would have been that out of all the fuss over spending and debt, that the military budget would be cut.

I don't care what kind of winding road it came by, or whether nobody takes the blame or takes the credit, but it did get done.

If we wind up getting a good budget through this time around, against all odds, I'll be similarly pleased. It doesn't matter to me who takes the blame or gets the credit, if the actual job is accomplished. And I'll be happy to have not set my hair on fire and smashed my Obama coffee mug in anger before it even went into debate.

[TekGryphon]

37. I'm surprised I haven't heard anything about it...

... I'll check up on it in the morning, but it's surprising that a military budget cut hasn't been talked about heavily here or in my other news aggregation sites.

[bhikkhu]

93. Here's one link:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-defense-cuts/1#.UWwcNH2RAYw

...something around 10%. I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but if you've been watching the last 14 years or so, one budget crisis after another, one round of discretionary cuts after another goes by, and the military budget has been untouchable - until now.

[neverforget]

94. His budget for FY 2014 is $900 million less than this year. It also replaces all of the

Sequestration cuts. Sorry but that is not "massive".

FY 2013 $527.5 billion
FY 2014 $526.6 billion

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

Chapter 1 Page 1

[sofa king]

100. Did it in an election season, no less.

Without a single Democratic candidate getting tarred for it. It de-fanged the Defense lobby, too.

A good budget is a possibility because all indications suggest that Republican obstinacy, and therefore predictability, has not changed. If you know they're going to say no to everything, you can outmaneuver them in much the same way that a parent can outmaneuver a child who says no to everything. That's how we snookered them into the Defense cuts in the first place.

We can also make them look really, really bad to their constituents, too, which is one of two essential budgetary hammer-blows that we have to deliver to the GOP before the 2014 mid-terms. The playing field is far more favorable now than it was four years ago, I'll say that, and Republicans have shown a perfect willingness to harm their own constituents in the pursuit of opposition.

So it's looking like a pretty good year, overall.

[calimary]

60. Welcome to DU, TekGryphon!

Glad you're here! I think it's entirely plausible. Once upon a time I think it might have been called reverse psychology. There are just too many knee-jerking jerks on the other side of the aisle who automatically oppose ANYTHING President Obama gets near. We've seen this repeatedly with the proposals that he's taken straight out of their playbooks, stuff they supported - and even introduced - merely because he got behind it. And for heaven's sake, they simply must oppose anything Obama puts forward.

[whathehell]

102. You might mean "some" Americans, as I'd guess all or most on this and other progressive boards have.

Just sayin'

[MannyGoldstein]

2. You're right! This will work as well as offering RomneyCare to Republicans!

It became toxic, which is how we got the public option that CandidateObama promised.

I think I need a drink.

[TekGryphon]

4. Health Care reform was massive and 90% of Americans...

.. couldn't wrap their heads around it. Republicans used that to their advantage.

Chained CPI is simple. It's a direct cut on current and future earnings for seniors who have worked their life to achieve it. It is a SINGLE idea and the legislation for it would fit on one page were it put before Congress.

You're lying to yourself if you think you can false equivocate the thousand page Health Care Reform with the single page Chained CPI proposal.

[JI7]

10. health care actually helped Obama with the non partisan types in 2012

especially parents with children which need special care. id on't know about the details but they were worried about what they would lose if Romney got into office.

[TekGryphon]

12. True, but we're talking about the negotiations

By the time we got around to the 2012 election the ACA was firmly entrenched in the hearts and minds of Democrats and Independents.

That was not the case during the negotiation process. Not by a long shut. The Republican message machine was as ruthless as it was relentless and many Americans were left unsettled by at least some of the false claims.

[madokie]

61. Thank you and welcome to DU

[Dawson Leery]

6. We will see.

[TekGryphon]

9. The polls are already in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/chained-cpi-seniors_n_3021606.html

We don't need to wait and see. Republicans need the senior vote. They would be completely and utterly obsolete without it.

It's dead.

[magellan]

14. There's no surprise in that poll; no defense in it

Polls from summer through fall last year showed the same thing. ANY poll anytime on the issue of SS would show the same thing.

The president didn't need to put CCPI on the table to make the Repubs back off it. He only had to get himself and the Dems out in front of the cameras to say as loudly and as often as possible, "The Republicans want to cut Social Security. They're demanding Chained CPI and worse - cuts that will hurt our seniors and our disabled vets. Why don't you tell the GOP what you think of their demands?"

Then sit back, watch the fun, and reap the political bennies for the Democratic Party.

Instead he offered the Repubs CCPI twice, and brought a shitstorm down on the party. AND was outflanked by the Repubs the second time, as they got to the mic first (as usual) and put the albatross around Obama's neck.

Screwing with SS is only dead until the next time the Repubs try it. And they will.

[duffyduff]

16. Remember, this wasn't a bluff on Obama's part. He WANTED it.

He's been going after Social Security and Medicare since Day One.

[Whisp]

18. what bollocks. n/t

[TekGryphon]

21. Yes, that certainly fits all his other accomplishments...

... oh wait, no it doesn't.

Doughnut hole closed, VA funding boost, extended unemployment insurance, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You are so off-base on history and reality that it's ridiculous, and I find you and your ilk's thinly veiled allusions that Obama is some puppet for the Wall Street banksters trying to dismantle entitlements to be disgusting.

[magellan]

31. Actually in 2008 Obama vowed no COLA adjustments:

"John McCain's campaign has gone even further, suggesting that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either."

[Champion Jack]

109. bullshit

[JDPriestly]

17. You are right. I think that Obama has not yet given up on chained CPI.

He wants it. That's why he proposed it. Sorry, but I am not convinced by the optimism of some of the more pro-Obama DUers. Obama proposed the chained CPI because he thinks it is a way to solve the budget problems.

[TekGryphon]

25. Show me ONE budget negotiation in the last 5 years...

.. that backs up your ridiculous notion that Obama has been a long term supporter of Chained CPI.

And before you get clever, no - this one doesn't count. We're not in negotiations yet, which is that part you don't seem to get. Obama put Chained CPI on center stage and got it destroyed before we even entered negotiations.

I'm proud of Obama for out-thinking the Republicans. I'm ashamed that, even after the fact, so many Democrats still can't figure out what happened.

[magellan]

36. Not a budget negotiation, but how about an Aug 2011 town hall meeting?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/18/1008266/-Obama-pushes-chained-CPI-in-town-hall-meeting

Q Can we look forward to you telling the Republicans that it's time that the wealthy pay their fair share? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first—this is a very well-informed young man here. (Laughter.) You're exactly right that the way the Social Security system works, there's what's called—there's basically a cap on your Social Security, which there isn't, by the way, on Medicare. But Social Security, it only goes up to the first $107,000; and you're right, somebody who makes—who has net assets of $250 million and are making maybe $5 million a year just on interest or capital gains or something, just a fraction of it's going to Social Security. I think there's a way for us to make adjustments on the Social Security tax that would be fairer than the system that we use right now.

I do think, in terms of how we calculate inflation, that's important as well.

[TekGryphon]

42. Which is why his budget increases SS payments to lower class Seniors

... while identifying ways to cap retirement benefits (primarily through IRA) that the rich can abuse.

You guys obsessing over the ONE compromise he put into his budget, which he then lamented the necessity for loudly to ensure no one missed it, is ridiculous.

Obama killed Chained CPI within 48 hours of proposing a symbolic budget while the budget proposals to strengthen SS and reduce exploits by the rich haven't even been touched.

[magellan]

48. No, it doesn't protect them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660876

Obama didn't need to offer CCPI to kill it. And he sure as hell didn't have to bother including "protections" if it wasn't a sincere offer.

[TekGryphon]

51. Like it or not...

... you weren't winning the debate on Chained CPI before this symbolic budget proposal. You weren't winning it because no one, except us, was talking about it.

Obama changed that and put it on center stage. Within 48 hours it suffered more negative publicity than progressives, including Bernie Sanders and Paul Krugman, have managed to drum up for months if not years.

His "protections" aren't just protections. They're Social Security enhancements that have long been demanded by progressives.

Now we've got them in a budget, we've destroyed the one true opponent we have (since raising the retirement age isn't politically feasible), and we're STILL ready to fall on our swords in outrage despite our victory.

[magellan]

57. "Obama changed that and put it on center stage"

He could have done that AND gained political capitol simply by calling the Repubs out on it in December, as I've written.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. So you were shown he's been in favour of it for at least 2 years

(long enough for a question about it as a town hall meeting in Aug 2011), and you're just going to pretend that didn't happen?

I know you've been blocked from this thread, for repeatedly insulting a DUer, but I think it's important that everyone notices just how deep in the sand your head it.

[JDPriestly]

63. Watch the video posted on DU of Democracy Now on Pete Peterson.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017111963

Obama appointed Simpson and Bowles, adversaries of Social Security to his debt commission. He also appointed Timothy Geithner from the NY Fed to be his Secretary of the Treasury and in charge of the Social Security Trust fund during the first term of his administration. Timothy Geithner was appointed to the NY Fed by a committee headed by Pete Peterson. So, Obama has definitely been "influenced" by Pete Peterson. To what extent we cannot know, but . . . . now we have a budget proposal with a chained CPI.

I know it sounds hysterical, but this is how things happen. This could be the beginning of the dismantling of Social Security. This is precisely how those things happen.

A popular, loved president plants a seed of an idea -- cutting the COLAs that keep seniors above water and make Social Security a successful program.

This is not good. We really need to stop this process at some point. Now is as good a time as any. It has gone far enough.

Please see the video.

[JDPriestly]

66. Read this article.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/

It's by Michael Hudson. Obama has been preparing to cut Social Security since he appointed Timothy Geithner to Treasury if not before. I'm sure you have read my posts on this before. Timothy Geithner was appointed to the NY Fed by a committee headed by Pete Peterson. He was a Pete Peterson protege.

Obama appointed well-known anti-Social-Security types including Erskine Bowles and Al Simpson to the Cat Food Commission.

Obama has been working to cut Social Security, to prepare the way for these cuts, since he got in office. He relented during the campaign. I fell for it since Romney would certainly have cut Social Security.

We have to get a pro-Social Security, pro working people candidate in 2016 or forget about the future.

[bvar22]

111. How about this from 2011?

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11."

Conyers added ""My response to him (President Obama) is TO MASS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROTEST THIS."

This declaration is significant both politically and morally as Conyers is not only the second most senior representative in the House, but was also the first member of Congress to endorse candidate Obama. Conyers doesn't merely draw a moral "line in the sand' but he presents a candid picture of violent contrasts between himself and the first African-American president.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

Are you trying to tell us we can't believe what our President says?
That is not a very good Marketing Point.
I think I'll stick with Rep. Conyers.
He has a good reputation telling the truth and saying exactly what he means.

[Sheepshank]

88. What would Obama put on the table that would in effect have Reps backing off?

seriously, it doesn't take much negotiating skills to figure out the blind set up here.

I've been saying it for weeks....and here we are. An item on the table the reps thought they could get Obama to pass on their behalf. Was-never-going-to-happen.

This same kick in the nuts has been delivered to the Reps over and over...and yet, they vocal anto Obama crowd, is suddenly silent....very silent.

[Volaris]

24. THIS. A lot of how this will play out is still up in the air, I think.

I'm not happy that C-CPI went into The President's proposed budget, but now that it's "dead", we can at least have a budget debate about things actually RELAVANT to the budget.

I cannot jusge Obama's motives for putting it in there. Maybe he DID think it would help strike a deal with the GOP, maybe he hates it as much as we all do, and KNEW it would be a non-starter.

I can only wait, judge the result as it unfolds, and lend my voice to what I believe to be important regarding Public Policy.

[elleng]

8. Yes. Thanks.

Good explanation.

Welcome

[Summer Hathaway]

13. This won't be a popular OP with many.

Your facts don't fit their outrage.

[truebluegreen]

114. His/her facts don't fit reality either.

[cthulu2016]

15. This is a preposterous theory, and even the supporting facts are wrong

Remember all the Republican votes the ACA got?

The idea that the individual mandate was slipped in by Republicans is a FANTASY... not real, made-up, bullshit, didn't happen, etc..

Slipped in by Republicans... in exchange for what?


The OP has simply made up a segment of American history that never happened.

Why?

[TekGryphon]

19. Allow me to interject a little reality into your revisionism:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1989/a-national-health-system-for-america

That's from 1989.

As for what the Individual Mandate was compromised on in exchange for, were you not paying attention?

We got pre-existing conditions nixed, mandatory employer health insurance requirements, TWO backdoor public options (a for-profit and a non-profit), closed the doughnut hole, set restrictions on premium hikes, and much, much more.

How did you miss all of this? Were you asleep for the last few years? Or were you simply not paying attention through that fog of anti-Obama faux outrage?

[Rex]

23. Seriously? You want to go with that?

The Heritage Foundation? REALLY? Can you actually source this or is that all you found on google?

[TekGryphon]

26. That's the origin of the Individual Mandate.

Or did you actually think Mitt Romney invented it?

Hahahaha... give me a f'ing break.

[Rex]

28. Give you a break?

Thank you for that humor, I love it maybe you can find something not so...nevermind have fun!

[Oilwellian]

105. The Heritage Foundation?

LOL...that is just too precious! You aren't selling your point very well. Good luck with that!

[cthulu2016]

38. Yes, when the Republicans slipped the individual mandate into Obama care in 1989.

Remember it well.

[TekGryphon]

53. I'm not following, sorry.

Are you denying that the Individual Mandate was a Republican idea and a Republican demand?

Are you inferring that the Individual Mandate originated with Obama? Or Romney?

I need to know just how uninformed you are about the origins and history of the Individual Mandate and the ACA negotiations before we continue this discussion.

Please proceed, Governor.

[Rex]

29. Well you know how informative the Heritage Foundation is!

[TekGryphon]

35. Are you illiterate? Or just trolling?

No one is supporting the Heritage Foundation. No one is supporting the Individual Mandate.

I'm stating the well known and well documented FACT that the Individual Mandate was originally thought up as a payment driver by the Heritage Foundation and has been a Republican pillar of Health Care reform for decades since.

This isn't up for debate and you playing the fool doesn't change that fact.

Quit acting like a child. If you think the Individual Mandate was invented by Obama or Romney than sack up and post something that defends your ridiculous theory.

[Rex]

41. I was going to ask you the same thing.

[TekGryphon]

44. Can you actually say anything?

I'm trying to be patient and help you work your way past your own misunderstanding, because we're both Democrats here, but your seemingly deliberate infantile trolling is making it difficult.

Please explain to me where your confusion is about the Individual Mandate being a Republican think-tank originated idea that was a central pillar of Republican health care reform for decades that Obama compromised on as a payment driver for the ACA in exchange for a laundry list of reforms that helped everyday Americans.

That's never-minding the fact that he was able to backdoor two public options (one profit, one non-profit) into the system, effectively sabotaging the Individual Mandate before it could gain traction.

[Rex]

45. No I don't think that is it at all, but thanks anyway.

My point was something entirely different that flew way over your head I see. Glad you found your way here, you can learn a lot on this website.

[Rex]

50. Of course.

Thank you for projection theater! It was boring...but you tried hard.

[Le Taz Hot]

69. "Projection Theater."

[Number23]

62. It's really a shame you had that post hidden and can no longer post in this thread

Next time, ignore the ever living crap out of the thread highjackers or those that seem to be burning a 1000 calories to NOT understand what you are saying.

[MADem]

89. +1. nt

[GeorgeGist]

75. Are you aware that Romney is a Republican?

[Doctor_J]

95. So we got health care that

has been a Republican pillar of Health Care reform for decades since.

, due to the president's masterful negotiation skills

[Oilwellian]

106. NOT to mention...

that is why Democrats faced huge defeats in 2010. At least it was a good douching of the Third Way but obviously we still have some work to do.

[DeSwiss]

20. "Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed." ~I.F. Stone n/t

[TekGryphon]

27. That's the mantra of libertarians.

Personally I think false equivalency is for the intellectually lazy, if not the intellectually dishonest.

[Warpy]

30. He didn't. We did.

Every one of us who made an irate phone call to the White House or our Congresscritters, wrote nasty letters and emails, and even cranked on DU and other websites destroyed it.

I don't think he quite expected our level of resistance to being cheated out of what we've spent lifetimes paying for.

[TekGryphon]

33. Half right, half wrong.

Chained CPI was a terrible idea. Us calling a spade a spade is exactly what we were supposed to do.

Falling on our swords, threatening to switch to Independent or sit out the election, and claiming Obama is against seniors was not.

WE won the argument, but Obama was the one who let us have that argument. Without it going into this first symbolic budget we would NOT have been able to have this discussion, and the first we would have heard of it would have been when it got passed in some backroom negotiation months down the line.

[Sheepshank]

90. Holding Obama's feet to the fire is exactly what everyone was supposed to do.

This is what we all should be doing with legislation that sucks. I get sick and tired of the martyrs that claim they are being told to sit down and shut up. Nothing is further from the truth. But I also recognize there is very little being offered from so many that is in the form of changing policy, more like destructive negativism.

But as you indicated, the voice of the people were heard and armed Obama with the exact ammunition he needed to put this all back on the shoulders of the republicans. Dems won't vote for it, and the end run is that the republicans can never vote for this type of legislation. Not now, not when they know the outrage it will cause.

How hard is it to figure out negotiation tactics and painting the opponent into a corner? So many here seem to think that negotiations are linear in thinking and mock the idea multi level chess...but the reality in politics is this is exactly how it all goes down. For those that don't think Mitch McConnell isn't a sly fox explicitly because he also knows how to play the multi dimensional games, then they are fooling themselves.

Obama offers the republicans something they want, CCPI. They salivate at the idea that they will not have to be the ones to pull the plug on Grandma and can lay the blame on the Dems. The republicans offer up items that are near and dear to them....but unfortunately for them, public outrage provides the pressure to remove CCPI. The other items the republicans have put on the table are not receiving the same level of outrage and public attention...ooops those are still up for negotiation and discussion.

[mettamega]

32. I am just not sure what Obama is up to - too soon to tell

[TekGryphon]

34. He has a long history and record...

.. of support for Social Security and opposition to Chained CPI.

Chained CPI is now dead and it's death was utterly predictable for those who kept their heads.

[solara]

40. Hear! Hear!

[MNBrewer]

80. You haven't seen very many horror movies, have you?

[caseymoz]

39. Sorry, frequently things are exactly what they appear to be.

Do you disagree with that? You don't have one scrap of evidence for what you say, not one White House memo that says, "Hey, let's pull the wool over Repubs eyes," not one indication from President Obama that his proposal was meant with any ambiguity.

So, you're asking us to believe you against the best evidence, and way you're doing it is with an impassioned plea and a check of the outcome. The former isn't substantial, the latter is like saying the US losing Vietnam was part of our clever strategy in winning the Cold War. The fallacy is called "After this, therefore because of this." Chronology and outcome do not indicate causation.

So, he "destroyed" Chained CPI?

Chained CPI was already utterly "destroyed" when Obama picked it up. The only people championing it then were Obama supporters like yourself who were telling us how it wasn't that bad, that it would magically save money without really hurting anybody, and the neediest would be protected (skipping the fact that it make more people into "the neediest&quot , and that Repubs would be fools for going for it. This is what I read on this board.

Repubs never to my knowledge mentioned Chained CPI. They would never come out for something so complex. No, they know how to keep their ideas simple and stupid. Their base would never rally around it.

No, Repubs have come out with raising the eligibility age, and their pundits have said this, if not the politicians. They have also said they want it privatized, which they have, and even their politicians have said that.

So, why didn't Obama come out with either of those two things to kill those prospects? They seem a much more plausible threat than Chained CPI.

If you're at all correct-- and that's unlikely-- all I could say is, Obama the Great certainly didn't count on the fact that he would demoralize his base. Great psychology. How is it the great 5D chess player doesn't consider that? How is it he doesn't consider what this does to the Democrats in the 2014 election, just as he didn't consider it in the 2010 elections?

Also, if he used this deceptive tactic on Repubs, it should be permissible to presume that he used it on his own constituency. Did he promised the most transparent US government in history to "kill" the idea? Did he promised to close Gitmo to kill that idea as well? If he's the master manipulator, why is it such a jump to presume he's manipulating us? It would be even easier for him because we (once) trusted him more than the Repubs ever did.

So, who would he be more likely to bluff, beguile, fool or deceive? How do you know it's the Repubs playing chess against him and not us?

That's the problem with deception. Collateral damage. Don't blame us, Obama's Party, for taking exactly what he says and does for what it appears to be. It's up to Obama to clean it up now. If he didn't consider our opinions might become a problem, maybe killing what didn't need to be killed wasn't too good an idea to begin with.

If that's what happened. I tend to think what we saw with Chained CPI was the "real" Obama showing what he thought of Social Security, and of his base.

Because if it wasn't, then he made a terminally stupid move.

[HiPointDem]

43. If that's the case, then publicizing the case against chained CPI *helps,* not hurts, his plan.

[TekGryphon]

46. Of course.

But threatening to fall on your sword, switch to Independent, sit out the next election, and make ridiculous claims that Obama is a plant by the Wall Street banksters out to steal our retirement isn't.

I'm happy every time I see a Democrat logically laying out why Chained CPI is a terrible idea.

I'm distraught every time I see them throwing a chicken-little fit just because they can't keep up with current events and realize that Chained CPI is now dead.

[HiPointDem]

55. so what? if you're correct, small potatoes in light of the greater service & it will all come out

in the wash.

[patrice]

49. The whole thing also advertised his jobs and universal daycare. nt

[brett_jv]

52. I'm inclined to want to go along with your argument, but ...

"and loudly proclaimed it a painful but necessary compromise that Republicans insisted on"

Remind of when he did this, like post links or whatnot?

Because it's a pretty key part of the picture I think, whether he really did or didn't do this, and I don't recall it but I was pretty busy at work last week, so ...

[TekGryphon]

56. From the White House (a good read, but focus on the first paragraph)

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.

The Budget contains two types of protections:

Benefit Enhancement for the Very Elderly and Others Who Rely on Social Security for Long Periods of Time

The benefit enhancement would be equal to 5% of the average retiree benefit, or about $800 per year if the proposal were in effect today.

It would phase in over 10 years, beginning at age 76, or (for other beneficiaries, such as those receiving Disability Insurance) in the 15th year of benefit receipt.

The benefit enhancement would begin in 2020, phasing in over 10 years for those 76 or older (or in their 15th year of eligibility or beyond) in that year.

Beneficiaries who continued to be on the program for an additional 10 years would be eligible for a second benefit enhancement, starting at age 95 in the case of a retired beneficiary.

Because of the benefit enhancement for the very elderly, the Budget proposal would not increase the poverty rate for Social Security beneficiaries, and would slightly reduce poverty among the very elderly according to SSA estimates.

Policy is Not Applied to Means-Tested Benefit Programs

Means-tested benefit programs are not included in the switch to the chained CPI. Programs that would not be included are:

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, meaning that the lowest-income seniors and people with disabilities generally would not be affected.
Means-tested veterans’ pensions as well as the Montgomery GI Bill-active duty or the post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and child nutrition programs.
Pell Grants.
Poverty guidelines.

[LittleBlue]

54. We should propose an abortion ban

To, you know, kill it.

[TekGryphon]

58. If social reforms were legislated the way budgets are...

... that might not be a bad idea.

2013's social reform package could contain full background checks on guns, better school funding, marijuana decriminalization, and a host of other popular populist ideas, and then offer to compromise with Republicans by giving them the abortion bans they're demanding.

Everyone loves the Democrat's proposals, everyone hates the compromise with Republicans, and by the time it goes into negotiations abortion ban is off the table.

Shame it doesn't work that way with social reforms. It's more of a state-by-state issue, unfortunately.

[madokie]

59. Thats what I've been trying to say too

but many here are bound and determined to bash the President that they can't see the forest for the trees.
I'll be surprised if you get out of here with your skin. If you know what I mean

[magellan]

64. Resorting to the ACA to defend Obama's games is another fail

You say:

Republicans waited until the Affordable Care Act negotiations were behind closed doors and insisted that it be the payment driver. Without it negotiations were a no-go, regardless of what some revisionists want to claim."

That was another great bit of negotiating, huh? Allowed the roundly hated mandate into the bill, and only secured ONE HOUSE REPUB VOTE for his trouble - an unneeded vote.

[Fumesucker]

67. You seem to be arguing that Republicans are going to be consistent

That because the Republicans are bad mouthing chained CPI right now they'll never do a 180 and start loving it, or just enact it without talking about it at all?

There's really only one logical response to that argument.

[magellan]

68. You obviously missed the point

And fyi, I've argued that the Repubs are CERTAIN to turn around and attack SS again, contrary to reports that this was Obama's genius play to "kill CCPI".

[Fumesucker]

70. No, I read your OP.

You are expecting the Republicans to be consistent, otherwise your entire rationale for Obama's behavior falls apart.

Obama didn't destroy CCPI, he just made sure the Democrats were chained to it politically now, no matter how it gets passed in the end.

Chained CPI or anything remotely like it that gets passed in the future will now have uber-Democrat Obama stuck to it like a coat of high tech paint in shades of blue.

[magellan]

71. No, sorry, you're still way off track

Keep trying, I won't bother explaining it to you.

[madokie]

72. Chained CPI will never be

thanks to President Obama.
The man is a hell of a lot smarter than you give him credit for

[Hekate]

65. Welcome to DU, TekGryphon

I see you've met the Welcome Wagon.

Seriously, thanks for your input.

Hekate

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Another post that assumes the audience here are idiots.

[dtom67]

76. This is a foolish argument to make....

Lets face it; there is no way to prove you are right. Snark does not equal proof. You are a lawyer in a courtroom; the best you can do is raise reasonable doubt. The most you can hope for is to maybe convince a few people.

you cannot prove the Presidents' intentions, but you can be proven wrong.


It is simple. If CCPI is dead and Obama should get the credit for brilliant outfoxing of the GOP( as you claim) then there is no longer a need for this to ever be offered again. If you are right, then He will not bring chained cpi ( or any other cuts to SS, for that matter)up as part of a "balanced approach " to the fake Debt crisis du jour.

I don't like your odds...

[Logical]

77. Maybe the worst post on this topic ever! LOL, unbelievable!

[OwnedByCats]

78. Whether this was "clever", remains to be seen

But I can guarantee you, once the elections get closer, the Repubs WILL use this against democrats in their campaigns. You can bet the farm on that. Do you think that everyone is going to buy this explanation, whether true or not? It does sound far fetched and it's going to cost democrats in the elections to some degree. How much of a degree is yet to be seen.

[vi5]

79. Oh brother.

I'm going to need some pretty deep bullshit proof waders in here today, aren't I?

[BlueStreak]

84. Now hang with me on this

Obama has said it is perfectly OK to cut Social Security benefits -- and of course chained CPI goes far beyond Social Security. It hits the middle class in many different ways.

What you don't seem to understand is that this was a brilliant 15-dimensional chess move. Obama is way ahead of us. "I knew that they knew that I knew that they knew that I knew they knew i might do this .. so I thwarted their evil plan by just doing it."

So that's the last we'll hear of cuts to social programs.

Done and done.

[vi5]

86. Until the election

When the ads will rightfully be that Obama and Democrats proposed cuts to social security benefits.

Period. End of story. And the ads will be accurate.

[BlueStreak]

87. They won't wait fo rthe election

They will grab that Chained CPI "give" and run. It will be attached to some bill and passed without much debate from either side.

And yes, Republicans will also use that in the election. It is the best of both worlds for them.

[reformist2]

81. No, *WE* are destroying Chained CPI. Obama just looks like a dumbass on this.

Now, you can argue that Obama meant to make himself look stupid, as a sacrifice for the greater purpose of demolishing Chained CPI. But unless Obama himself confesses this was his plan all along, I'm going to believe he was wrong for promoting it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. He didn't destroy the argument for it, he advanced it instead

Maybe the politics won't allow for the cutting of Social Security this year, maybe, but Obama helped make the case for it and gave additional cover for third way Democrats to continue to do the same for years to come. Talk chess moves until your face turns blue, but I would rather have Democratic Presidents making the case for NOT cutting Social Security.

[Babel_17]

107. We keep ignoring that Serious People want and expect the Chained CPI

I'll give the administration credit for ameliorating the pain that goes with a chained CPI. Their proposals will make a serious difference to the most desperate. I'm relieved that the administration isn't oblivious to what the Chained CPI, if unleashed, would do.

Though it shows they are expecting to sell it, somehow, and to someone.

The Serious People expect us plebeians to take what we're given and be happy to have it.

And the last 12 years have shown us that government tends to cave to the Serious People.

[bowens43]

83. The only thing Obama destroyed is our chance to win back the house in 2014

Obama I am so sick of seeing the obamapoligists trying to spin Obama's biggest fuck so far (and there have been many) as some kind of win.

You think Obama didn't want chained cpi ??? ROFLMAO. So you're saying Obama is a liar and that's better?

Pathetic attempt to spin this huge fuck up

[Vinnie From Indy]

85. Nonsense!

And, these "grand" public discussions of the CPI appear to only be taking place on lefty sites like DU and other places. As far as the mainstream media and the Obama camp, there is actually very little being discussed.

OP Fail!

[forestpath]

91. Going by this "rationale," Obama didn't want the ACA either.

[99Forever]

92. That's the most irrational excuse for Obama's blunder...

... I've heard yet and I've heard some real whoppers. Congrats on taking the prize.

[Rex]

96. It was a pathetic attempt to help prop up the 3 people that

would actually agree with him! You know, those guys that just sign up to help out the RAH RAH team. Pathetic.

[HomeboyHombre]

98. +1 nt

[HomeboyHombre]

97. Ah, the 11 levels of chess excuse

When FDR or Reagan wanted something, they just went out and got it.

When Bush wanted war with Iraq, he just went and did it.

When Obama wants something, we're told he must campaign for what he doesn't want to draw attention to it so that he can then . . . aw, hell, I can't repeat this total bullshit.

[sofa king]

104. ... as telegraphed by the President himself:

Minutes after suggesting he’s a toxic ingredient in negotiations, at least among some conservatives, Obama also offered two seemingly contradictory arguments. He declared his persuasive powers irrelevant when it comes to working with the opposing party. Then he said he’s made good progress with the GOP on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act; immigration reform; controls on guns; and early childhood education policies.

“The issue is not my persuasive power,” the president told reporters. “The American people agree with my approach. They agree that we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction. . . . I have a lot of confidence that over time, if the American people express their displeasure about how something's working, that eventually Congress responds.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/02/to_obama_gops_opposition_is_personal_117250.html

The President's persuasive powers are irrelevant because he succeeds through maneuver, not persuasion. He seems fully aware that his own positions create automatic opposition to them among Republicans. That is how he makes good progress, by turning their opposition against them until they have no direction to turn except in the direction he wants them to go.

Are the American people expressing displeasure about chained-CPI? Hell, yes. Did the President's mere proposal of it erode Republican votes in favor of it? Hell, yes. Will Democratic legislators support it? They'd better not.

So how about that? The lame duck President proposes it and takes all the flak for it, the idea is trashed and savaged by both sides before it can even be reported out of Committee, and now it's radioactive and cannot be used in any compromise.

Guess he just got lucky.

[HomeboyHombre]

117. Wow, great plan:

Source: Washington Post

President Obama’s offer to trim Social Security benefits has perplexed and angered Democrats, but GOP leaders are embracing the proposal and rushing to jump-start a debate that will delve even more deeply into the touchy topic of federal spending on the elderly.

[Safetykitten]

99. reminds me of the Pee Wee Herman bike fall..."I meant to do that!"

[Douglas Carpenter]

101. Making cuts to Social Security the national Democratic Party agenda is something to celebrate?

Okay it is almost certainly not going to pass - Because the Republicans are going to block cuts to Social Security benefits in spite of the White House's proposal to cut Social Security benefits. But still now it is official - the Democratic Party supports cuts to Social Security and the Republicans are against cuts to Social Security benefits? Yeah, of course the story behind the fact that on the national level the Democratic Party supports cuts to Social Security and the Republicans opposes cuts to Social Security benefits get complicated. We all know that there is more to it that that. But it does not change the FACT that on the national level - the Democratic Party now supports cuts to Social Security benefits and the Republican Party opposes cuts to Social Security benefits. That is the simple reality whether you like it or not.

[progressoid]

103. OFFS.

[Skittles]

113. "WE won the argument, but Obama was the one who let us have that argument."

[Babel_17]

108. The Republicans are going to hold the debt ceiling hostage

In all negotiations with the Republicans, that has been in the background. The administration has been offering the Chained CPI, in good faith, in exchange for not making deep cuts in social programs and for some added tax revenue.

The administration can walk away from offering it anymore but, imo, it will be considered an act of bad faith by the negotiators if the administration argues that they were setting up the Republicans.

We could argue that, but you need to be careful going down that path. Trust and believability are currency in the public forum.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17/both-parties-in-congress-may-have-reason-for-january-deal.html

the CPI revision has been a centerpiece of most of the major bipartisan efforts to trim the debt.

That includes Obama’s failed negotiations with Boehner in 2011 over a grand bargain to trim the deficit, as well as the proposal by the co-chairmen of the president’s 2010 debt panel.

“This is not a fringe idea,” said Jared Bernstein, a former member of Obama’s economic team and a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Democratic- aligned group wrote a February paper advocating the chained CPI under “certain conditions.”

The administration will be accepted as being justified if it pulls the Chained CPI off the table. That will be a clear victory for us. But it is less clear that it will result in any advantage in the polls. Having negotiated for so long the addition of a chained CPI to the budget it will be that much harder to argue as ones staunch defender from that happening. It will be harder to portray the Republicans as the slavering fanatics determined to have it at any cost.

In my opinion, too many people in the administration cared too much about being considered Serious. So instead of coming out of the gate ripping into Republicans for considering a chained CPI they followed the Serious Idea of putting it on the table.

They lost an opportunity by not putting a greater faith in the public supporting a defense of SS against such a cut.

[Skittles]

110. LOL

[GeorgeGist]

112. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014454861

[Mnpaul]

115. This is how you destroy chained CPI

You totally wipe out the whole argument.

[Union Scribe]

116. .

Welcome (back?) to DU.