Reply #49: Baker makes that same great point. Whether they know it or not

[chill_wind]

to this day that decision had impacts for tens of millions of current and future retirees.

The other thing he talks about in that piece is that the Greenspan idea had considerable appeal in both parties (and the Clinton White House) and (or perhaps because) "the great thing was that Congress could do this cut by claiming it was just a technical adjustment."

It feels a bit like deja vu to hear Nancy Pelosi say what sounds somewhat similar-- about the way some lawmakers want to frame it again now:

"As negotiations over deficit reduction and raising the debt ceiling continue, Pelosi reiterated today that Democrats are opposed to making cuts to Social Security benefits.

When asked if changing the Social Security formula for cost of living adjustments was a de facto benefit cut, Pelosi did not directly answer.

"No. Cutting benefits is exactly that. Cutting benefits," Pelosi said. "There's concern in my caucus about what would happen with the CPI (consumer price index). Some think it is a benefit cut, others do not."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20077942-503544.html

Not her own framing necessarily, but just that she's already encountering this.

But not to omit this:

"But she reiterated that any savings from changing the CPI would have to go back to the Social Security Trust Fund."