I seeded yesterday an acticle that few seemed to take seriously. Yesterday's seed warned that the fiscal cliff was being used to solve a non-problem but the real agenda was begin to undercut the New Deal that includes the "untouchabe" and "not on the table" social security. I had missed the evidence that is already out there. Here it is from another source:
The details of a possible deal are changing by the hour, but there's a chance a plan to slow the growth of spending on Social Security benefits will be part of the final package, a proposal President Barack Obama has put on the table.
Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District Rep. Keith Ellison isn't hot on the idea. As co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, he says the proposal will mean big cuts to benefits.
"The current average earned benefit for a 65 year old on Social Security is $17,134," Ellison said in a statement. "Using chained CPI will result in a $6,000 loss for retirees in the first fifteen years of retirement and adds up to a $16,000 loss over twenty-five years."
Seniors will see smaller benefits under the proposed Social Security plan - the administration estimates its proposal would save about $122 billion - but it's difficult to say exactly how much of a cut that would mean per beneficiary.
Currently, Social Security benefits fluctuate with the price of goods. When the cost of goods goes up, so does the benefit.
Obama has proposed switching to the chained-CPI, an inflation measure that assumes beneficiaries buy less or stop buying a product when its price goes up. For instance, when the price of beef increases, the chained CPI assumes people buy chicken, which is cheaper, instead.
That means benefits would continue to go up, but at a slower rate. As a beneficiary gets older, benefits would get smaller compared to current law.
Among other prominent fiscal experts, the chained CPI is favored by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of Obama's Deficit Commission, as well as some conservative groups.
Ellison is among those who say says using the chained CPI it will mean big cuts to Social Security benefits..... Ellison's numbers come from Social Security Works, a group that wants to increase benefits for the elderly and is supported by an array of labor and liberal groups, including MoveOn.org. It looks at the cumulative loss in benefits over different time periods to come up with that estimate.
AARP, which also opposes switching to the chained CPI, estimates that benefits would be 2.9 percent lower than current law after 10 years in the program, and 8.4 percent lower after being in the program for 30 years.
For those interested, here is yesterday's seed: Obama Moves Ahead to Destroy the New Deal under Guise of Fiscal Cliff
Looks like it was prophetic. Merry Christmas to the 1% whose takes will go up a meaningless 4% and to those relying on social security who are seeing the beginning of the erosion of the New Deal.
Don't worry, there will be policy wonks who will try to tell you this is not to be worried about and that the numbers aren't as bad as the critics say and that, anyway, the co-chairs of Obama's Deficit Commission know better.
Ha ha ha. You do need to read yesterday's seed. Obama's as bad as his critics warned (maybe not as wild as Romney, but Obama is a much better salesman of the agenda of the 1% and the oil/gas/financial industry). Obama Moves Ahead to Destroy the New Deal under Guise of Fiscal Cliff.
There are exactly two rules to live and die by when the government starts reshaping its priorities. One: If you are not at the table you are on it. Two: The best way to take something away from someone is for them to give you permission to do so for a greater, nobler good....
So on one side we have the Fix the Debt people saying we have to cut “entitlements” – Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security .... In return for this, they are willing to pay as much as 4% higher taxes for the good of the country.....
On the other side we have the president and a number of Democrats saying that we have to control the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, so that they will be secure for the long-term....they want raise taxes on the super wealthy by 2% to 4%....
Duopoly in Action!
You are probably now duly alarmed that these positions sound eerily similar....
[Position] We must destroy/weaken the infrastructure and rationale of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to “save” it.... and we will levy a temporary maximum 4% income tax increase on the wealthiest Americans so that all of us are sacrificing to “save” these programs… deal?
"This is the first step toward destroying what remains of the New Deal