I would like to hear your ideas on why my REPUBLICAN Senators oppose Chained CPI.

[quaker bill]

24. It is not the chained CPI that they oppose

They oppose the increased minimum benefit. They oppose the fact that the chained CPI is not applied at lower benefit levels. They oppose that is sustains the program and does not shift it to a "defined contribution" - private account/401K model. They oppose the fact that SS would become stable without meeting their demands to destroy it or raising taxes to fund it. They oppose the fact that the proposal somewhat flattens benefit distribution by raising benefits for the poor and slightly decreasing the rate of increase in payments for the largest beneficiaries in the process.

As I will be well into the upper half of beneficiaries when I claim benefits, chained CPI will apply to me, if it becomes law. I would much prefer that we raise the income cap to continue to fund current COLAS for all beneficiaries, but do support flattening the benefit distribution by increasing the minimum, and perhaps some formula for a minimum COLA applied to the lowest benefit levels to flatten the distribution even more over time.

I have run the numbers and am pretty sure I will be able to get by living simply with my defined benefit pension and social security in a few years. Chained CPI will not help, but what Gov. Scott did to my pension will hurt more.

Republicans oppose anything that does not shift these programs to "defined contribution" models or "you are on your own" vouchers.