Last week the White House announced that it was—at least for now—giving up on a cut in Social Security benefits known as “chained CPI.” This news made many in the elite media upset that Washington wasn’t coming together to do something so perfectly sensible.
Chained CPI—an adjustment in calculating inflation that would cut benefits—had outraged left-liberal activists and economists, who argue that cutting Social Security for the sake of budget savings and a so-called “grand bargain” is bad policy.
But it’s been popular with journalists (FAIR Blog, 12/19/12), some of whom seem to think that cutting benefits for the elderly is a wise political move to the middle (FAIR Blog, 4/8/13).
The Washington Post editorial page (2/21/14) called the news a “huge disappointment” and declared that Obama “has abdicated what little leadership on entitlement reform he had shown.” Post columnist Fred Hiatt (2/23/14) wrote that chained CPI was a “relatively small thing…that would have helped save Social Security.” He went on to sadly note, “Someone else will have to fix Social Security.”
And CBS‘s Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer (2/23/14) observed:
You have those on the left who would take the party as far that way as some of the Tea Party folks want to take the Republican Party on the right. I mean, when the president comes out and says he’s not going to touch entitlement reform, that’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull to the Republicans. I mean, have we given up on trying to get anything done and compromising on anything?
It’s an old theme in corporate media, this idea that the “two sides” should do more to “compromise” on what the pundits seem to believe are no-brainers.
Over on Meet the Press (2/23/14), New York Times columnist David Brooks lamented that these failures have terrible economic consequences:
What are the things that are going to help the economy in the near term? Immigration would be a huge boost for the economy. A fast-track trade deal across the Atlantic, across the Pacific, huge boost. Chained CPI would save a trillion dollars in the second decade off the federal budget debt.
So these are all gigantic, very good policies, where there is majority support and where, in the old days in Washington, you’d cobble together a bipartisan coalition and get rid of the fringes. But right now, the fringes have veto power over everything else, and nobody’s found a solution to that.
Chris Matthew agreed, explaining that the Democrats are
going to the battle stations: Nothing on Social Security. All-out talk about minimum wage. Nothing on trade. David’s dead right. Nothing’s going to get done, because both parties have gone to their base.
These comments exhibit a curious notion about where the “middle” is and what “majority support” means.
(cc photo: Phillip Winn)
In reality, the cuts in Social Security benefits that would occur because of chained CPI make it an enormously unpopular policy idea.
The public is not permitted to know much about secretive corporate trade arrangements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership; nonetheless, some polls suggest that people are not terribly enthusiastic about them, or about granting the White House “fast track” authority.
And while Matthews thinks of a minimum wage hike as evidence that Democrats are off at their “battle stations” and playing to their base, that’s a policy idea that is actually broadly popular with the public.
There’s a notion in centrist media that the political “center” is the best place to be. So it’s especially interesting to see what media think the “center” is. Often their version of the middle is well to the right of the majority of the public.
Compromise. Cut U.S.Sugar subsidies! It will have greater effect and cause less electoral pain.
To be noticed by the media, take absurd positions. Then the talk show hosts will give you equal time. The major media always try to strike a balance between absurdity and sanity, but of course it can’t be done.
I can’t say that HuffPost is a really credible polling service, and you have misquoted the poll. The poll asked whether a change to Social Security benefits was a good idea AS PART OF a budget agreement.
It is not a stand-alone question.
Cut the military entitlement, the oil entitlement, the filthy rich corporate farm entitlement abd the filthy rich asshole entitlement instead of Social Security or Medicare.
SS is financed by a flat tax and by law can’t draw from the general fund. The taxes end once a taxpayer makes $108,900.00. So SS is hardly progressive and can pay benefits only on what it collects from flat and limited taxes. It’s the most conservative program of its type in the West; yet, the Republicans want to cut what people have already paid for.
SS works well, and just cost about $8.00 to administer $1,000.00 in benefits. Maybe that explains why the business classes hate it. It is an example of what people can do on their own outside the profit system. A similar program by John Hancock would cost about 20% or more to administer and would be subject to the vagaries of the market, which include the machinations of cheaters like Lloyd Blankfien and Jamie Diamond.
An expanded SS program would be beneficial, with people agreeing to a larger payroll deduction in return for a much larger pension. We need to fight back!
;Collect back taxes and penalties for the billions hidden off shore that we can locate and remove the income cutoff for paying into Social Security. Those two measures alone would solidify all present “entitlements” for the foreseeable future and significantly reduce the debt. It is absurd that I pay more taxes than General Electric so closing some huge loopholes is also past due. A politician arguing against these measures would probably not be re-elected.
Unless you cut contributions too, you cannot cut benefits without stealing those contributions for other purposes. It is plain as day. If revenue is needed (which it is) there are a zillion places that deserve and can well afford to be tapped for it. Now of course the right doesn’t want any more revenue so their position on this is loony for different reasons than the so called “left”. Bottom line is that for actual people relying on SS for their retirement this kind of debate might as well be about death panels only for real.
One had hoped David Brooks would have choked to death on his own hypocrisy by now. The only appropriate caricature of these people is a fat-faced fellow smiling gleefully as he sharpens a knife to slaughter a baby for his supper.
I don’t recall any efforts to reduce my FICA payments while I was working; now that I’m on the other side, suddenly it’s wasteful spending to return the money to me?
Congress has blown all the money it could get away with over the years and now that our national debt has gotten so high it could cause a collapse of the economy and they are searching for ways to satisfy the Federal Reserve who is actually the master in Washington and our government, they can only think of ways to take it from the citizen whom these con-artists were put in office to represent.
These congress men we elect to office to represent the people and those behind this effort to cut, eliminate or alter our government programs are probably sick of Americans enjoying the benefits and want them gotten rid of so they can bring about Communism or Fascism.
These was a day , when Congress and economists never wanted to talk and think of a national debt in the trillions of dollars because they said it was to too incomprehensible to consider. Not trouble any more , is it?
Why is social security called an entitlement? It seems like an investment, but a real investment because Wall St. can’t touch it. Why isn’t it called a pension, since people pay into it for retirement?
There is a big place to cut for saving and I think the government should stop giving any more money to the military until they can show what they actually did with it This is the problem with the military money pit.
it’s reallty the hight of stupidity to say “never mnind” since no one in the government can figure out the military’s bookkeeping. They just seem to be wasting and stealing with no accountability.
O.K.——- the only thing to do is to give each service area a budget and a debit card and when the money’s gone that’s it—–no more!
Since we lose all the wars, this would make for a much shorter loss period. Maybe we could actually all work together for the well being of the planet, as wars never seem to do that.
What is all this talk about? Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $2.7 Trillion that will last until at least 2035, or longer when the everyone goes back to work. If all the pundits are that concerned, let them advocate raising, or eliminating, the income cap which is around $113,000 now. You won’t hear them advocating that since they all make multiples of that amount. Medicare has been ‘fixed’ thanks to Obama, not Congress, until about 2027 (I think).
I don’t see what the problem is. All Congress has to do is remove the cap on Social Security taxes, currently at a little over $100K in income, and Social Security will be fully funded longer than any of us will be alive.
I think the idea from the right is basically that we are in serious economic trouble.A realization that we are sinking,and sinking fast.Now whether or not their ideas of fixing the problem are valid is almost beside the point.The problem with Compromise is that the left wants to make it seem that all is well.And if it is not, the simple answers will do.Print,borrow, and spend like there is no tomorrow(and there wont be).Increase all social programs and giveaways tenfold.Run up the minimum wage to$ 25.00.Or just tax the rich and all will be well.yahoo lets have a party.The left has always said SS is in great shape.As unsinkable as the Titanic.To compromise we first have to acknowledge that we are all in the same boat.And the name of that boat is the Titanic.We are not Ok on any level.We ARE in troubled waters.Lets start from there