Atrios on Obama’s proposed Social Security cuts:
1) Attempt to get Ron Fournier and Fred Hiatt to write nice things about you
2) ???
3) profit!
Whatever one thinks of the future of Social Security, there’s no denying that cutting Social Security is a loser politically. People are screaming about the debt these days but voters don’t really give a fuck about it. Fred Hiatt and Ron Fournier purport to give a fuck but (a) how many divisions do they have and (b) does anyone have any idea of what goes on in their heads anyway?
Let me treat (b) in a little more detail. I was speaking with a friend a few days ago about North Korea. We both agreed that part of what made the situation so scary there is that no one knows for sure that the generals or Kim Jong-un think about anything. We know what North Korean propaganda says: Kim Jong-un is awesome, his enemies will be engulfed in a sea of fire. It’s so crazy no one could believe it (right?) so what do they really think?
Is that so different that Ron Fournier and Fred Hiatt? Their mantra is both sides do it, bipartisanship is awesome, the debt will engulf the American economy in a sea of fire. It’s so crazy no one could believe it (right?) so what do they really think?
Spaghetti Lee
I like pie.
Batocchio
Hiatt and Fournier don’t know a hawk from a handsaw.
Bruce S
I know Obama is smarter than me and knows far more about real politics, but I’m sorry – this is dumb politically as well as bad policy.
Unfortunately, the Oval Office is it’s own bubble – which IMHO accounts for why he could be persuaded in this direction by various advisors. Even assuming it’s a feint, and they don’t believe the GOPers can bring themselves to a Grand Bargain that wouldn’t have so many poison pills that Obama would inevitably refuse it, it’s a terrible place to start a supposed negotiation. There’s no “halfway” with these guys. It’s critical that in context of 2014 congressional Dems push back against this nonsense, because the GOPers will use it in attack ads to paint Democrats as being the ones who want to cut Social Security benefits. This is a no-brainer.
Morzer
This sort of imbecilic policy and imminent political disaster is what happens when a fine mind is exposed to David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan’s crayon squiggles for too long.
Omnes Omnibus
@Batocchio: That depends upon the wind.
JGabriel
White House Petition: Do Not Cut Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments With Chained CPI.
Ruckus
@Morzer:
Good point but a fine mind would suspect those two might be full of shit. A half wit would think those two are full of shit. But a no wit would know they are full of shit.
rda909
@Bruce S: So this is “dumb” to you?
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/04/for-ideologue-left-social-security.html
The misinformation about “chained CPI” being passed around by white-privilege leftists is astounding.
Hill Dweller
Also too, Obama is already out there saying he doesn’t really support cutting SS.
Lolis
I don’t think talking about Social Security cuts is the third rail anymore. I have met a lot of younger people (30 or under) who talk about how they don’t even expect it to be around for them. Stupid I know, but we are a country full of stupid. The right has succeeded in making a lot of people think government is useless and that we are going bankrupt. People think all this bad stuff is now inevitable.
rda909
@JGabriel: YES! STORM THE ONLINE PETITIONS BRAVE KEYBOARD KOMMANDOS!!!! ACTIVATE!
Bruce S
@Morzer:
Yeah – first of all, asking Grandma to cut back on the tuna sandwiches so that Mitt Romney and friends can be asked to pay a bit more taxes isn’t “shared sacrifice.” Second, even if Grandma agrees to switch to cat food, the GOP won’t take a bigger tax bite out of MittCo, so why the hell are we even going there. When Mitt pays the same rate of SS taxes on his income that I do, we can talk about the future of Social Security benefits. Until then, nothing should be “on the table.” Frankly, we’re better off not dealing with the deficit at all if these are the terms. The increase in income inequality, high unemployment while corporate profits soar and shift in tax burden away from corporations and the uber-wealthy are the economic problems that need to be addressed. Other than the need over time to overhaul a dysfunctional health care system by increasing regulation and making sure it’s both inclusive and efficient, the deficit is a red herring.
Bruce S
@rda909:
\
Yeah – dumb as dirt. “People’s View” is about as dishonest and reactionary a website as I’ve seen that’s supposedly “liberal.” They are obsessive in apologizing for any and every thing that comes out of the White House. This is a bullshit, ahistorical approach to politics. And the characterization is a pile of crap – forged version of what the critics of chained CPI are saying by claiming that they are also against a list of other issues. Dishonest pricks. You should know better than posting that crap. If you want to defend chained CPI, fire away. But don’t insult my intelligence with that juvenile shit.
Corner Stone
@Bruce S: thepeoplesview is a hyperkinetic version of what WH press releases would look like if they were allowed to use curse words.
Arclite
@Batocchio: They may not know what a hand saw is but they sure know what a hacksaw is.
Hoodie
@Bruce S:
Sorry, you should have stopped there.
Bruce S
@Corner Stone:
Yeah – the implication that because folks such as myself and…uh, former White House economic advisor Jared Bernstein see chained CPI as a benefit cut that has the added negative of being politically unpopular across the spectrum and a poison pill for Dems running in 2014, we are also part of some “reactionary Left” cabal that opposes increased regulation of pharmaceutical companies and universal preschool is just an insult to the brain.
People’s View is just shit.
Bruce S
@Hoodie:
And you’ve proven yourself a real genius with that zinger. Can you make an argument or are you just some dumb fuck with a prick attitude?
rda909
@Bruce S: Wow. No way to defend against that. Well played, sir!
Bruce S
@rda909:
“white-privilege leftists”
Go fuck yourself if that’s the best you can do. Ad hominem bullshit, with absolutely ZERO substance in terms of discussion of chained CPI. If you’ve got something to say, say it. But fuck your lame-ass, cowardly approach.
Marc
@Bruce S:
Liberals used to be perfectly OK with this, or at least as a legitimate thing to debate (e.g. how should we account for inflation.) The howling about a minor change, from the people who are always screaming about how they hate Obama, is getting goddamn tiresome. I don’t want left politics to be an echo of the mindless crap on the right.
Bruce S
@rda909:
Defend chained CPI on the merits. Otherwise, you’ve got it right. “No way to defend, etc. etc.” That was a stupid – even bizarre – quote in response to a discussion of the merits, political and economic, of the chained CPI proposal.
rda909
@Bruce S: You are clearly the best-looking commenter here.
rda909
@Bruce S: I’m going out the door in about 5 minutes, so won’t be able to do that now. Maybe some other time?
Bruce S
@Marc:
Yeah people who scream about how they hate Obama like Jared Bernstein. You’re full of shit. I have never seen any defense of chained CPI coming from a liberal who wanted to better account for the inflation that hits seniors. NO ONE claims that chained CPI takes into account the particularities of inflation among seniors. It’s a way of cutting back on the COLA, no more and no less. None of the folks defending this have done anything other than use ad hominems or tack on alleged grievances against critics of chained CPI that have nothing to do with it, like the “People’s View” laundry list of what we’re supposedly “against.” Dishonest crap. If you have a case for chained CPI, make it. Ditch the bullshit.
Bruce S
@rda909:
I don’t really give a shit. I’ve seen the data from “better looking” folks than you. Have fun. You won’t be missed.
rda909
Great title! I watched “North by Northwest” as my tribute movie the other night for Roger Ebert.
Davis X. Machina
If Obama’s hell-bent on cutting SS, why just not cut SS? Why indirection via manipulating the COLA? And if manipulating the COLA is the only way to do it, why bother with a Grand Bargain at all?
We’ve already established
a.) cutting SS is what Obama really wants to do. We know
b.) it’s what all Very Serious People want to do, and we know
c.) Obama wants above all else to earn the adulation of the VSP.
Why such a round-about route to the goal of cutting SS? Why not simply propose directly cutting benefits, or only adopting chained CPI? Without any tax increases. Apart from a budget deal.
He’s not running again — he’s term-limited.
The House will pass cuts — they’ve been rattling on about ‘unchecked growth in entitlements’ since Noah shut the door on the Ark. There’s no offsetting increase in the top tax rate.
Is the hangup in the Senate? And is this why Reid won’t kill the filibuster? He has to have it ready to hand, to kill the House version of Obama’s SS cuts?
I’m confused. Why the indirection? Did Ockham stop making razors?
Hoodie
@Davis X. Machina: Because this is a complicated technical change that no average person understands, will take several years to have significant effect, can be manipulated in its administration and will likely be undone by a future Congress when the 401(k) shit hits the fan. Chained CPI’s sole purpose is to produce today’s headline in my local paper: “Obama budget proposal attacked by both sides.” He’s giving dems something to run for 2014. They’ve futzed around worrying about whether they should criticize Obama, and have yet to formulate any coherent policy narrative. They’re like guys on a team with Michael Jordan, they sit around and expect Obama to hit the shot and get the rebound. I’m afraid they’ll do the same thing waiting to see what Hillary wants. Run against his SS proposal, I doubt he cares, seeing as he isn’t up for re-election. In selected districts, it’s a winner. That’s not Obama’s role; he’s playing dad mediating between the kids.
Hill Dweller
@Davis X. Machina: Obama wants credit from the Village for his willingness to propose cuts, without actually passing/implementing the cuts.
jamick6000
I like DougJ’s writing, it has some soul.
DougJ, Friend of Hamas
@jamick6000:
Thank you
Morzer
@rda909:
When you figure out how to count to five without using your fingers, please, share your wisdom. Until then, work on the basic math project.
Corner Stone
@Davis X. Machina: This is a lot of words. Is chained CPI a) an acceptable policy proposal, or b) some misdirection of politics masquerading as policy? Add or minus anything you like there.
Mino
Let me see if I have this right. Dems in 2014 are expected to argue that the voters MUST give them the House or Obama and the Republicans will cut SS. That is an intereting angle.
boss bitch
Pretty sure Obama doesn’t give two fucks about Beltway hacks. We’ve known him long enough to know that.
boss bitch
@Hill Dweller:
He doesn’t care about the Village. If he did, he wouldn’t have won the election.
Davis X. Machina
@Corner Stone: It’s probably a bad piece of the actuary’s craft.
It’s a stupid way to cut SS. Which is what Obama wants to do — I believe that’s been established beyond cavil here.
The way to cut SS is to cut SS. Obama’s got means, motive and opportunity to just sign a House bill cutting SS, provided it passes the Senate. Yet he’s not cutting SS that way. From this you could draw any number of inferences…
danimal
Obama just protected SS and Medicare for the rest of his presidency. In these ‘Opposite Day’ political times for the GOP, they will no longer support entitlement cuts because Obama put them in his budget.
Now, if Obama would only tell the GOP that he’s strongly opposed to drinking bleach…
Keith G
@Bruce S: The chained price index certainly seems to have a bias that runs counter to the spending needs (not habits) of the elderly. It will hurt those who can not increase their income nor change the fact that so many of their costs are essentially fixed.
If Obama chooses to school me on why this is not so or how it will be mitigated, I will listen. The onus is on him.
I am waiting.
David Koch
If that’s true, then why didn’t republicans pay a price with non-minority seniors 5 months ago for repeatedly voting to kill Medicare? They won that vote 61-39.
If that’s true, then why didn’t St. Reagan pay a price in 84 after raising the retirement age and slashing benefits approximately 15% when he taxed benefits for the first time in history? He won the senior vote 64-36.
I wish it was a loser politically, but so far there’s no electoral evidence to support that. Maybe we should quit pretending seniors vote for Democrats.
jl
Whatever promises to juice the next paycheck and next party/schmooze/networking business opportunity. I think those are what form their thoughts and nothing else.
Corner Stone
@Davis X. Machina:
Yes, you could.
Corner Stone
@Mino:
It’s really a horrible position to be in, IMO.
1. you loudly proclaim how you stood up to the leader of the D party and fought back against any cut to SS
2. you spend 13 minutes explaining how this is actually good medicine for the public, then turn on your TV and watch the inevitable R campaign ads
3. you pray to whatever force you believe in you got money for jobs projects in your local CD you can bray about 24/7
Bill Murray
@Bruce S: to better account for inflation for the elderly, cpi-e should be used. There’s a petition for that with the white house
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/use-cpi-e-calculate-adjustments-social-security/t6SBdtzj
Bruce S
@Davis X. Machina:
That’s stupid…beyond cavil. No one I’m aware of believes Obama is doing this because “he wants to cut Social Security.” This is another version of the People’s View approach – create a half-assed strawman to divert from any rational or considered discussion. I don’t believe Obama WANTS to cut SS. I do believe he wants to offer something that will look – in the context of what has become in DC the “mainstream” discourse – like some element of compromise with the GOP, especially if it breaks with his own base – and frankly there is more than one way to interpret exactly why he’s doing this and what his strategic motives are. But there are good reasons to (a) oppose this proposed measure on simple policy and fairness grounds and (b) to consider it a less-than-astute political move because he’s handing the GOP an issue that they will exploit opportunistically since their strategic game is “You go first” regarding any “Grand Bargain” tinkering with Social Security. One can debate this, but I’m really not into debating it with people who appear to not be honest in their approach to argument. Too many of you have crawled out with these bizarre angles that are steeped in bullshit, as opposed to straightforward defense of the chained CPI or some underlying political strategy. I really hate it when people deliberately mischaracterize – presumably because they’ve not got much else. So far I’ve been lumped in context of my opinion on chained CPI as an “Obama-hater” and accused of opposing universal pre-school and regulating pharmaceutical companies. Or just told I should just shut up. This crap is annoying at best.
Bruce S
@Bill Murray:
Agreed. We should be talking about finding ways of increasing benefits over the long term – given how shaky other pension options have proven.
kris
If Obama wanted to give democrats something to run on, he would propose to increase the size of the social security fund by raising the cap on contributions. Instead he is trying to cut social security benefits-this in an environment where most people close to retirement age don’t nearly have enough savings to retire on, and in a really bad economy with a low likelihood of being employed when one is old.
If it is some fancy electoral strategy for the midterms, it is deeply immoral, since he has put the financial security of a lot of ordinary people at stake. If it is something he genuinely believes in, he is out of touch with the realities of most americans’ lives, and to put it plainly he is pursuing a stupid and wrongheaded policy.
Either way this is bad and immoral policymaking.
Bruce S
Incidentally, I actually checked out that People’s View piece and here’s the genius conclusion regarding groups like MoveOn petitioning against chained CPI:
So “both sides do it” and MoveOn (highlighted as one of the “fearmongers” by PV) appealing to the White House against changing the SS COLA is as much of a threat to rational public policy as Wayne LaPierre and the NRA! I was being too kind when I noted that People’s View is “shit.”
ricky
Here is a simple question for the really simple people here
who keep spouting the same simplistic Social Security Song.
If the Chained CPI proposal in the Obama budget were adopted
as the law of the land, do current best estimates indicate that Social Security Benefits will automatically continue to increase, or will they decrease?
Irony Abounds
@Bruce S: Question: If Obama’s proposal does in fact provide protections for lower income seniors, what’s the huge problem? Doesn’t it merely translate into a cut in benefits for well to do seniors?
As for those of you who want the cap lifted on the SS tax, I can assure you, there is not better way to bring Social Security to an end. There are two problems with that approach. First, if you simply lift the cap, most of the increased revenues will have to go to increased benefits for those who are paying the increased taxes. That’s the way SS works. Second, that kind and scope of tax increase will decimate support for Social Security for a significant percentage of voters. Not to mention destroy the economy. Chained CPI, with lower income senior protection, along with a relatively modest increase in the cap and slightly higher taxes on Social Security benefits on those in upper income brackets will likely solve Social Security’s problems for the foreseeable future.
Alex S.
@Hill Dweller:
Yes, nice!
I like to think of Obama’s moves in the terms of a poker player (I heard he likes to play it). The Social Security change does not do anything to hurt the economy right now, it ‘only’ impacts the future. He hopes that he gets something in return, from the Village or from Repulbicans, something that helps right now. Chained CPI and statistics is not something that is easily translatable into ads. Yes, OBAMA CUTS SOCIAL SECURITY, could always work, but to explain how he did it, and that it doesn’t change anything RIGHT NOW, there’s no immediate damage. Obama cuts Social Security in the smallest, most complicated way possible, and gets credit and something else. For him personally, it’s a win.
On the other hand, the house republicans probably want more blood. It’s unlikely they’ll accept this. Nothing will change. Obama will appear as if he wants to get things done, he’s bipartisan etc… all the benefits that he already has, as the polls show.
The republicans will reject that measure, try to blame it on Obama, they’ll appear as fanatic as always, Obama gets some credit as a ‘bold’, ‘serious’ leader, yaddayadda, maybe Pete Peterson, the Koch Brothers and the like are going to reduce their investment in congressional republicans.
Bruce S
@Irony Abounds:
We’re now well below the projected percentage of personal income captured by the SS tax than when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill “saved Social Security” – primarily because of increased income inequality. So people proposing raising the cap aren’t outside the bounds of anything that St. Reagan agreed with. That’s the way to start.
And if you want to start tinkering with Social Security so it’s less of a pure retirement program – as the chained CPI advocates who acknowledge the reality of a benefits cut propose with a “bump” in benefits for lower income retirees or 85 year olds who have accrued the COLA and lost the most – let’s cap benefits at the highest income levels.
I’m not an actuary, but I do know that no government program is better funded into the actually-foreseeable future than SS, that predictions of its demise are fraudulent and actual time-horizons change dramatically with shifts in the economy and that buying in to the hysterics around Social Security, much less deficits in general, is handing terrain to the folks who hate the government, hate Social Security and Medicare and hate taxes on the wealthy who can best afford them and have historically paid more than they are now under the Scary Black President.
In fact, your suggestion that if Mitt Romney and friends – or even just people who make 50% or two or three times as much money as I do – paid tax rates equal to mine on their income it would “destroy the economy” sounds a little too familiar and, frankly, like CrazyTalk from the usual suspects who do, in fact, want to destroy the economy. Perhaps “have actually destroyed the economy” is more accurate than “want to destroy the economy.” I won’t ascribe motives, other than wanton greed rationalized by perverted ideology and bogus “macroeconomics”, i.e. distortions of economic history since the Great Depression.
Bruce S
@Irony Abounds:
Also, no it’s not just a cut for “well-to-do” seniors. It’s a cut for all seniors except those at the lowest income levels (if the proposed “fix” to accompany the COLA cut is adopted along with the cut) and those who have survived for 18 or 19 years with the lower COLA. So it’s a cut for what we like to call “the middle class.” My parents lived a dignified life in their elder years because of Social Security and the notion that people like them are somehow at the center of our “budget problems” as we look at the overall economic issues bedeviling the country is just a damned lie.
One other thing – idiots like Peoples View who berate those who protest for better public policy than the President himself might propose (not just this President, but every President, from the best to the worst) has a totally useless approach to politics and creating “change.” It might well be the President’s job as he sees it to find some compromise with the worst of the worst in the GOP dominated congress – although the terms of any compromise are always arguable. But for liberals outside the administration to not object to what is objectively bad public policy – like cuts in SS – (not to mention what many of us see as a trap for Democrats nationwide if they actually agree to cuts that are wildly unpopular) to simply rubber-stamp any and every proposal that comes out of the White House in the fray of Beltway maneuvering is insane and actually weakens the President’s hand in any negotiation rather than strengthening it.
This is what’s maddening about clowns like People’s View who berate some straw-man “Left” they’ve conjured more effectively to their rhetorical ends than any “left” actually has done for itself. Why any liberal would defer ti simply becoming White House-centric in their politics – at least any liberal who has actual experience with social movements over the years or even just a coherent reading of history – is beyond me.
Barack Obama is not our Martin Luther King. He’s our Lyndon Johnson, our FDR and, yes, our Bill Clinton in historical and political terms. (And shout-out to Melissa Harris-Perry for making this fundamental point to a national audience.) He’s there to be pushed toward the better policy, not to be taken as the fountain of all that is good for the country. I admire the President, have done more for him in terms of time and money than I ever thought I would do for any politician ever in my life, consider him the best President in my lifetime, agree with him on a lot (the Dronez, for one thing, although I’m glad others are critical because I always want people out there raising hell and asking hard questions about the evils of war), but I’ll be damned if I’ll defer to him in some role of cheerleader.
Barack Obama could not single-handedly change the Washington dynamic, and the Washington dynamic is very fucked up – partly because too many of us have spent too much time sitting on our ass as though politics is a spectator sport and we’re supposed to take sides in the manner of clowns on Chris Matthews. We need noisy social movements (often populated by folks who are more radical and/or rude than we might be) protesting the entire range of economic bullshit being purveyed by the elites – and that includes characters in the White House like Tim Geithner who have not been worthy of our trust – not knee-jerk defenders of President Obama against vocal liberals, of all people, as though he’s some fragile figure and people pushing back on a proposal like Chained CPI are exercising “white privilege” against the Black President. I would bet my retirement savings that not a one of these little dicks who purvey that shit spent a minute working in the actual civil rights movement in the ’60s or organizing against the Vietnam War early on, much less doing precinct work for Obama in ’07 in a predominantly African-American district.
I didn’t work to get Obama elected for some assholes on the internet to attack me for “white privilege” because I’m against actual cuts to social security COLA benefits that will impact every “middle class” African American retiree, among others. That’s utterly rancid bullshit coming from a useless peanut gallery. I’m willing to argue whether chained CPI might not be a worthwhile compromise down the road – were we dealing with a sane GOP that would actually agree to things that we know they’ll never agree to – but not to debate in the context of crazy talk linking opposition to this particular policy to “white privilege”,”wrecking the economy” or “opposing universal pre-school.” That this stuff gets pulled out before any numbers or other data is telling.
If there were an active cohort on the left organizing around economic issues that was as determined and noisy as the Tea Party crazies were in ’09 and ’10, Obama would be playing with a much stronger hand. “Political” types like People’s View are essential worthless in the bigger picture – and while I also reserve my own critique of MoveOn, to compare them to the NRA is just obscene.
Bruce S
@ricky:
I thought it was obvious that the distinction is between two rates of cost-of-living increase – one is the traditional CPI cost increase index, the other is a variation on CPI tinkering with certain items that assumes folks getting a lower COLA can “shift” their spending habits to save money – say buy cheaper meat or…something. Because, you know, too many seniors on SS haven’t been tightening their belts! This “shared sacrifice” BEFORE proposing to raise the % of income covered by SS taxes to what Ronald Reagan had agreed to. Sorry, but that’s just wrong. Get back to me when SS tax rates apply to 90% of income. Increase in income inequality has moved a large piece of the taxable pie out of the picture. That’s a real problem that needs to be addressed before we start tinkering with benefits. Also, as a first offer out of the gate, cutting SS benefits – which is what this actually is, despite any double-talk – is not masterful in these so-called negotiations with a sociopathic congressional GOP.
Corner Stone
@Alex S.:
That was all anyone just heard out of your comment.
There is no nuance here, no explaining to be done.
Corner Stone
If we’re going with the theory that this is just political posturing and will never get through Congress, then why aren’t we vocally supporting a “good” policy that has no chance of getting through Congress?
Why not propose an increase in SS benefits? I seem to recall the president just completed a pretty solid victory in 2012 after running a campaign of medium populism.
Why not propose something that would actually engage people?
The main difference I can see between the proposals of these two doomed policies is that one would appeal to the VSP and one would appeal to the actual voters.
Irony Abounds
@Bruce S: I have no idea how much money you make, so I have no idea what a 50% increase in that amount would be, but if you don’t think that a 12.5% increase in taxes for those making between $110,000 and $250K to $300K will hurt the economy or unfairly burden those in that income bracket you really have no appreciation for how the economy works or how people in that income range live.
I have a another question for you. What do you expect a family with two kids that makes around $200k a year to give up as a result of that additional tax burden (which might be as much as $10,000)? Should they have to go into debt to send their kids to college rather than paying cash? Should they not be able to spend a decent amount (say, $2,500) to take a nice vacation? Should they not make provisions for their own retirement above and beyond Social Security? Should they not be responsible and get quality car, home, life and medical insurance – in other words be responsible citizens who take steps to make sure they do not become a burden on society?
This has nothing to do with Romney and his ilk. Most people who have earned income up to $300k work their asses off to earn it. And since earned income is where the SS tax hits, in that case you are penalizing hard work. I have no problem with minor increases in the cap, but to simply lift the cap is a terrible way of addressing what really is not a horrible funding problem.
Bruce S
@Irony Abounds:
No – I think that if I can stomach that tax rate at around $60,000 a year and my partner can handle it at around $100K, someone making considerably more can certainly handle it as well. They can “suffer” with the rest of us folks who live in the actual lower-to-middle classes. Why the fuck isn’t the economy already tanking with 80% of income taxed at that totally non-progressive rate. We should capture at least 90%, as we have in the past. You’re basically feeding me GOP talking points. Everybody deserves nice stuff – one of which is an expectation of Social Security at least as robust as what our parents had. If it’s “not a horrible funding problem”, I agree that what we do won’t have to be draconian. But increasing the cap is better than cutting benefits, and no one can honestly argue that already modest benefits won’t be less over the long term with chained CPI.
Actually, if I were to come up with my own ideal formulation, I’d exempt the first 10K or so for everybody and then raise the tax rates as needed to compensate. That would actually guarantee more folks less hardship an more “nice things.” I’m sorry, but in this real world that I happen to experience, I can’t shed too many tears for those in the $110,000 to $300,000 income bracket “working their asses off.” I know many of these folks and I know for a fact they don’t work nearly as hard – although they think they do and are “terribly busy” – as folks in the lower income brackets who do shit like clean those folks houses or make the beds when they take a vacation at a high-end hotel.