General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGuess what? Chained CPI is the bright idea of Third Way, the Dem "policy shop".
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 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.
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.
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 governments ability to adequately fund other important priorities. This is why the authors maintain that Social Security reform must alter the trajectory of the programs 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.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)They seem clueless about real people. Yes, they set out to cater to the wealthy.
jsr
(7,712 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And Dick Durbin is arguing FOR a chained CPI, not against it. He tries to appear as an advocate for the vulnerable by saying that its use should be exempted for Social Security benefits, but he wants to let this scam take hold in our government and affect other vulnerable groups: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022020805#post7
A chained CPI affects many other programs and vulnerable groups apart from Social Security recipients. By advocating its use at all, Durbin is saying,
Fuck the disabled. Fuck veterans. Fuck federal retirees.
What a disgusting charade from self-described "Democrats."
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I think they took him to the dark side on entitlements.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)May be true, but definitely part of the 3rd way plans for the Democrats.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)There is no need for doing this to seniors.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Things really move faster here, so fast posts disappear in minutes.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)It's a variation of a form of internet propaganda known as forum sliding.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Think I will read that whole link.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, did goofy left fringe things like bring in and defend Social Security. Then Clinton and the DLC came along and "fixed" the party and taught us how to forget inconvenient things like principles. Now we have the 3rd Way to help us even more.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I have it somewhere.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)Nothing succinct and unimpeachable, like sources linking Kochs and DLC.
Thanks for the Heritage info. So many far-right ies, with so much money and time, and so much hatred for American Democracy and the American public. This 'big tent' stuff can be a drawback, when they're inside the tent, but not peeing out.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)which became the Third Way.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=990812&mesg_id=990857
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)as an easy way to find a bad entity to hang the third way mess on.
Sourcewatch has stuff on Third Way Foundation funding, and funding for the laughably named 'Progressive Policy Institute'.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Third_Way_Foundation
It lists some usual suspect foundations, Olin, Bradley. Some oil companies, Occidental, Chevron, Amoco. Some chem companies, DuPont, Dow. Defense companies, banks, insurance comps. The Kochs' Georgia-Pacific is listed on the old (up to 1999) Progressive Foundation's corporate funder list.
Al From, from your post 28 link, is still listed as Chair, but the stub article is 4 years old.
Thanks for the DU link. I often forget to look in here first, and instead go outside to get substantiating info. I'm glad you posted the excerpt snips in '04, because the progressive and prospect articles went down the internet memory hole.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)If you do a search on my username, on Eloriel, on heddafoil...will let you know if I think of others. Then some old posts show up. Oh, the PPI...way too obvious.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)Else why aren't the results in temporal order, old - new or n - o?
Got one from E on Bradley Foundation, by looking for 'Eloriel Koch'.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2388291&mesg_id=2388297
Some working Inst. for Pol Studies rightweb links on it.
Thanks for the tip on E and H_F.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Melinda
(5,465 posts)What slays me is that they get away with calling themselves a 'progressive' organization.
Raygun would be proud.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Always important to keep a view of the forest, and not just the trees.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Because some of the Noobs have NO idea about how evil the Third Way "Dems" are and how bent they are on shoving their heads up Big Business' asses as far as they can.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)As soon as the Senator, Representative, Secretary or President needs one upon leaving office. For the rest of us, not so much.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)They are the job creators. They don't seem to want to create jobs until they get everything they want.
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)Although, several Progressive Think Tanks support it.
Personally, I prefer removing benefits for the wealthy and eliminating the Cap. But those may not be politically feasible AT THIS TIME. Here is an excellent article from Salon over why the Chained CPI is a bad idea, and why we may have to embrace it, anyway.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/the_progressive_case_for_the_chained_cpi/
BUT it was NOT the "idea of the Third Way". It's been around for a long, long time.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)But you are probably right....all of these policies took root long ago.