HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here's what I don't get: ...

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:42 PM

Here's what I don't get: why would the White House share its latest proposal

They know that there will be lots of opposition to chained CPI, and I don't see why they want to be the ones seen as proposing it when it's something the GOP has been pushing for.

I could see it if House Democrats who were informed of the plan were unhappy and leaked it, but that doesn't seem to be what happened here. It seems like this disclosure came straight from the White House.

I am not saying the president is not willing to agree to chained CPI...in the past, he has shown willingness to agree to that in exchange for revenue if it was structured in such a way that protected the poorest SS recipients.

But if they were actually close to reaching this deal, you would think they would keep it under wraps to avoid protests from liberal groups and bloggers and activists until it is too late to do anything.

The only reason I can see for the White House making this proposal public is either a) Boehner agreed to it on the condition that the president be the one to propose it; or b) the White House put it out knowing the House Republicans won't accept it, to ensure that House Republicans look unreasonable when they fail to reach a deal.

Wishful thinking to hope that it's b?

18 replies, 1590 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's what I don't get: why would the White House share its latest proposal (Original post)
democrattotheend Dec 2012 OP
msongs Dec 2012 #1
Liberalynn Dec 2012 #10
leftstreet Dec 2012 #14
PoliticAverse Dec 2012 #2
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #3
GoCubsGo Dec 2012 #4
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #5
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #17
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #18
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #6
WillyT Dec 2012 #9
Liberalynn Dec 2012 #12
reformist2 Dec 2012 #7
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #13
Liberalynn Dec 2012 #15
Bonobo Dec 2012 #8
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #11
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #16

Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:46 PM

1. this process should be broadcast live on tv...all of it nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:14 PM

10. Agreed

 

this is our lives they are dealing with and we are supposed to be their bosses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:22 PM

14. “I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:46 PM

2. 3-dimensional chess is hard.... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:50 PM

3. Option b) I think

 

It also helps that the Left has screamed bloody murder about it. Apart from Chained CPI being a fucking awful idea that will hurt a lot of people, the outrage from the Left makes the R's look even worse when they reject it, as they were certain to do. Here's why: they absolutely cannot be on record voting for a 39.5% rate on $388,500 and up. They cannot. They will not. They'd rather hit the cliff.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:02 PM

4. Or, c) This is not the White House's proposal.

Thom Hartmann had on Ellen Ratner from the Talk Radio News Service this afternoon. She insisted that this is John Boehner's doing, not the President's. I wouldn't put it past him to try to pull some kind of dirty trick right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:06 PM

5. Obama included the Republicans request in his OWN proposal.

If it goes through, Obama and congressional Democrats own it.

The proposal was part of an effort by President Barack Obama to compromise on deficit reduction issues in the ongoing "fiscal cliff" talks, spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

But he characterized the change, requested by Republicans, as "technical," and said a clause in Obama's fiscal cliff plan would protect the elderly and other vulnerable groups from harsh adjustments to Social Security benefit payments.


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/usa-fiscal-inflation-idUKL1E8NI9IZ20121218

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:15 PM

17. Which is why I am skeptical about it going through

If it was what they agreed to or what the president expected the GOP to agree to, he would not have leaked it in this way. The only reason I see for leaking it before it is agreed to is if you expect them not to agree to it and want to look reasonable to ensure that they take the fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:07 PM

18. In my opinion, they leaked it to get us all in an uproar about Social Security....

But Jay Carney has already hinted that SS and some other programs may be exempt from chained CPI. When We The People finally get to see the goddamn thing and IF SS is exempt, everyone will be like, "See, Obama is great!" and "You all were wrong! He promised not to touch SS and he didn't! Suck on that lefty swine!"

BUT BUT BUT, even if SS and a few other social programs are off the table, chained CPI is horrible for poor and low income people. Chained CPI results in a tax increase that disproportionately affects the poor through the middle class.

It's a right wing wet dream.

Even if Social Security is exempt, it is going to hurt the majority of us.

The Chained CPI would also effectively raise taxes on virtually all working Americans, especially middle and lower income families. By applying it to all government programs, including the annual adjustment in income tax brackets, the Chained CPI would cause those thresholds to rise more slowly than they do now. That would lead to incomes jumping up to higher tax brackets faster, or in other words, income tax increases.
According to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, if individual income taxes were indexed to the Chained CPI starting in January 2013, by 2021, 69 percent of the gains in revenue would come from taxpayers with incomes below $100,000, while those in the highest income brackets would barely be affected. For example, workers with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 would experience an increased tax burden of 14.5 percent, while those with incomes over $1,000,000 would just see an increase of 0.1 percent. 9 This contradicts the idea that the negative effects from benefit cuts due to a switch to the Chained CPI would be offset by increased revenue from the wealthy.


The above is an excerpt from a report from the Center For Economic And Policy Research. You can download the report from this page:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-chained-cpi-a-painful-cut-in-social-security-benefits-and-a-stealth-tax-hike

And a link to the press release
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/chained-cpi-cuts-social-security-benefits-while-raising-taxes-on-the-middle-class

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:09 PM

6. I think this came from the White House

And Carney sort of confirmed it today, noting that Boehner wanted it and the president was willing to agree if Boehner met his other demands.

Politically, wouldn't it make more sense for President Obama to want to look like Boehner didn't give him a choice on this, if they were actually going to agree to it?

I feel like the reason to seem so openly willing to do it is if they don't expect the GOP to agree to it. Then they can say how far the president and Democrats in the House were willing to go and the GOP was still unreasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:13 PM

9. Yep... Click On The Plus Signs On The Left-Hand Side To See The Details

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:18 PM

12. But we are hearing reports that Cantor says he has the votes to pass Fiscal Cliff Bill

 

true it could be for Boners plan but they know that is dead on arrival cause Dems already said no to it. My guess it is for this deal, the President's counter proposal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014341836

So what if the PUKES don't reject it?

My hope is that the DEM Senate will reject it.

ETA: Apparently it is on Boners Plan B, that Cantor has the votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=341984 thank you MelissaF for clearing that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:10 PM

7. In any case, we need to show our opposition, loudly and vehemently. This is not what we voted for!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:20 PM

13. I agree

I support efforts to make the Social Security trust fund last longer but this is not a good way to do it. If they are not going to raise the cap I'd rather see them raise taxes on wealthier beneficiaries. It looked like there was bipartisan support for that but I have not heard much about it lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:24 PM

15. Tweet

 

#NoChainedCPI in addition to writing and calling your Congress critters. https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NoChainedCPI&src=hash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:11 PM

8. So that when it turns out is just a 5% cut, instead of 10%...

Many will applaud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:16 PM

11. Well, 5% is a lot better than 10%

Plus, if the chained CPI cut ends up being half what they are saying now and the president gets everything else in this latest proposal that seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:24 PM

16. No, it is a shit deal. Chained CPI will RAISE taxes and the poor will be hit the worse

and, of course, the 1% will barely feel it.

The argument that a reduction in benefits would be offset by an increase in tax revenue from high-income earners also falls short. Switching to the Chained CPI to adjust annual income tax brackets would lead to incomes jumping to higher brackets faster, or in other words, tax increases. Congress’ non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation showed that if income taxes were indexed to the Chained CPI starting in January of 2013, by 2021, 69 percent of the gains in revenue would come from taxpayers with incomes below $100,000. Those taxpayers with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 would see an increased tax burden of 14.5 percent while those with incomes over $1,000,000 would only see their taxes go up by 0.1 percent.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/chained-cpi-cuts-social-security-benefits-while-raising-taxes-on-the-middle-class

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread