Guess what? Chained CPI is the bright idea of Third Way, the Dem "policy shop".

[madfloridian]

The DLC once claimed to be the "policy shop" for Democrats. In 2011 Fox Democrat Kirsten Powers posted that DLC had shut down, and the http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/09/dlc-shutting-down-third-way-is-the-democrats-true-centrist-powerhouse.html">Third Way had taken their place.

The policies recommended by these Democratic "think tanks" have controlled our party for years.

Here are the details of their Social Security plan posted 2011 at the website of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

http://crfb.org/blogs/third-way-introduces-new-social-security-reform-plan">Third Way Introduces New Social Security Reform Plan

Yesterday, the organization Third Way released a plan outlining several Social Security reform proposals meant to ensure the program's solvency over the next 75 years. The plan, called Saving Social Security, makes several fundamental changes to the program and cuts $2 in benefits for every $1 it increases taxes. The authors of the plan describe it as "savings-led" and say that by approaching Social Security reform in a progressive way, it's possible to come up with "a solvency plan that would make Franklin Roosevelt proud". The major points of the plan are summarized in the tables below:


Proposal Savings Through 2040 Portion of 75 year Budget Gap Closed

make benefits formula more progressive neutral no effect

index retirement age to longevity, reaching 70 by 2077 $1 trillion >one-third

cut payroll taxes in half for older workers unspecified modest cost

switch to chained CPI for COLAs $2 trillion ~one-third

increase payroll tax for high-income workers (with or without a FICA "donut hole" payment)

$1.2 trillion ~one-third

fully tax benefits for high-income seniors $500 billion modest improvement

means test benefits

immigration reforms (including surcharges on immigrant visas) $115 billion modest improvement
TOTAL <$5 trillion >100%

Here is more about the Third Way plan which includes private accounts.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7991">Third Way's new Social Security Plan

The plan also calls for creating optional private retirement accounts for those in the workforce and under 30; it dedicates $8 billion per year to these accounts, with funds being raised by an increase in the Estate Tax.

....In an op-ed in Politico, the authors of the plan - Jim Kessler and David Kendall - explain the reasoning behind some of their proposals and offer very interesting insight, particularly in regards to the widely-held view that any Social Security reform that touches benefits is completely unacceptable. They also make several interesting observations about the idea of Social Security reform that is solely revenue-based. If you look at Social Security in isolation, maintaining its solvency through only increased revenue is theoretically possible. However, that view is unrealistic; Social Security needs to be viewed in the context of all federal government priorities. Viewed in this light, is maintaining the current level of promised Social Security benefits the very best use of increased taxes? You can only raise so much additional revenue, and funneling all of it into Social Security hinders the government’s ability to adequately fund other important priorities. This is why the authors maintain that Social Security reform must alter the trajectory of the program’s growth rather than simply financing it, and why the plan makes $2 in benefit cuts for every $1 it raises in revenue. As Mr. Kessler and Mr. Kendall state in their op-ed:

"It would be reckless to allow Social Security to take up the entire pool of what is potentially available to deal with the retirement of the baby boom generation...Social Security is one of the greatest liberal achievements. But many groups on the left have drawn a line in the sand that could doom it or set the nation on a course to fiscal ruins. Putting the weight of his Nobel Prize in economics behind this anti-reform coalition, New York Times columnist and Princeton professor Paul Krugman calls the Social Security crisis "invented" by "Social Security attackers" using "bad-faith accounting". Americans can be thankful that progressives such as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities have weighed in behind other serious approaches that include benefit cuts."

I HAVE drawn that line in the sand.

Crossposted at DU3

[No Elephants]

1. Yep. That's why I grind my teeth every time someone says or posts

that Obama needs a spine or that "caved again" or got outsmarted. IMO, Obama has been doing pretty much what he wants to do. Probably the astounding victories of the Republicans in 2010 did interfere with domestic policy, but he doubled down on Patriot Act style anti-terrorism after that, including drone killings.

As far as social safety nets, AFAIK, Obama was the first elected Democrat to refer to them as "entitlements." And he promised to "reform" them in January 2009, shortly before his first Inauguration. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html


The Democratic Party had always had its conservative wing, chiefly Southern Democrats, who were about as frustrated with the Northeastern Democrats as were conservative Republicans. They becamse stronger in the Party after the almost unanimous electoral defeat of McGovern by Nixon and even stronger after Reagan's defeat of Mondale.

The DLC became their home, especially WASP Southern Democrats with Presidential aspirations. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Mark Warner, Sam Nunn, Chuck Robb, etc..


Supposedly, Al From, from the very red state or Indiana, was the founder of the DLC. He and Will Marshall, a Southerner, were certainly the first two full time employees of the DLC. (In 2003, Marshall signed the PNAC memo.)


When Clinton won the Presidency as the first DLC candidate, the DLC's hold on the Party became very strong, again especially among those with Presidential aspirations. Even Kerry, who had come to national attention as an anti-Vietnam war hero, became a founding member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition--and then ran for President.

But, Third Way and DLC are not the only ones. There is the Progressive Policy Institute, founded by Will Marshall. (Every time I hear someone wonder why Obama is not as progressive as they are, I wince. People seem to think "progressive" and "liberal" are synonyms. Far from it.) And most recently, there is No Labels, founded by a Republican and joined by many DLC types.

No Labels describes both the Tea Party and liberals as "toxic," as though liberals, which were the base of the Democratic Party for decades, are the equivalent of the Koch-created Teabaggers.

At some point after Lincoln, the Republican and Democratic parties re-aligned, with Democrats becoming the party of equal rights, though, again, Northeastern Republicans were probably more liberal on that issue than were Southern Democrats.

Maybe the Parties will eventually re-align again, this time dividing into liberals and conservatives. It may be too late, though, as the conservatives own almost all media and have been controlling and manipulating public opinion for a long time. For instance, the public option initially polled at over 70% public approval. Then, the propaganda machine got going on it and the next thing we knew Obamacare's death panels would kill your grannie--right after taking your guns so you couldn't even defend her.

Liberal voters may just have slept too long. (Funny thing: by the standards of 1950, 1960 and 1970 standards, I'd be a conservative Democrat, especially for a Northeasterner.)

[No Elephants]

2. P.S. It's also why the supposedly "drop dead" argument of recent Presidential elections no longer

scares me.

Obama's nominations to the Supreme Court have not been comforting to me. Sotomayor's resume prior to her initial nomination to the bench is pretty mysterious. Supposedly, she had a solo practice for a good while, but how do we verify that? She did get herself very well pollitically connected early on, though, That much we do know.

And don't get me started on Kagan, whose resume is not mysterious, but seems to have kept her legal and political positions secret throughout her career.

The rumor that Cass Sunstein might be his next nominee, if he gets another shot, is certainly no comfort either. Or, for that matter, Hillary, who AFAIK, was the only female founding member of the DLC.

As for nominees of Republican Presidents, the DLC policy was/is that Senators should oppose nominees of Republicans Presidents "on principle," but not filibuster them. So, you can probably thank the DLC for all your "favorite" current Justices. too.

[Enthusiast]

3. Well, we're fucked.

Because Obama pretended to be an actual Democrat and we bought into the ruse.

[No Elephants]

4. Not sure. By 2012 many knew exactly who and what Obama was

and voted for him again anyway.

Then again, I don't know what would have happened if they had all voted for a platform in which they actually believed, as opposed to voting to endorse something they professed not to want. Because voting is only part of the equation. After voting, comes the counting.

Still, I don't think I will be voting for what I don't want out of fear anymore.