Chained CPI Is Off the Table

But only because Democrats want it to be part of the “Grand Bargain” in the debt ceiling battle coming up in February.

Digby has a suitably acidic response to dumbass faux liberal Ruth Marcus, who thinks cutting Social Security checks for elderly and disabled Americans is just a peachy keen way to reduce a deficit that those benefits had zero part in creating:

The [current CPI] fails to account for what economists call upper-level substitution bias, and what my mother would call plain common sense: If the price rises for a certain commodity in the basket of goods used to measure inflation, consumers will choose a cheaper alternative. In my house, when the price of beef soars, we substitute chicken — …

Yes, I’m quite sure the price of beef is always a huge concern for an elite columnist at one of the world’s most influential newspapers. In that column, the allegedly liberal Ruth Marcus went on to heartily endorse the change, saying that the White House had assured her that the most elderly poor will be taken care of so it’s all good. And then I’m sure she rushed into the kitchen to figure out how to stretch her meager weekly ground beef allotment for another few days. Oatmeal added to the meatloaf can be quite nourishing, don’t you know?

Ezra Klein has more on why chained CPI is such a bad idea.

2 comments to Chained CPI Is Off the Table

  • She does realize, of course, that if prices keep rising and cheaper items are continually substituted, then eventually everyone is eating catfood. That has occurred to those advocating the “chained CPI,” right?

  • Jeff Wegerson

    Time for some offense. I’m tired of always playing defense. Food is only part of inflation but since we are talking about it we need to start talking about taking “food stamps” off of means testing. Everyone who applies should be accepted, rich or poor, young or old, social security or not. If you are too proud to take them fine don’t apply. If you don’t believe in them then fine, like abortion, no one is forcing you to have them.

    If we make “food stamps” available to all then it is no longer welfare but an “entitlement.” Another word that we now need to go on offense about. It’s not an entitlement it’s a “fair share” of America’s abundance. Okay, it’s likely not a world wide fair share, but one offensive play at a time.

    It’s sort of like Alaska sharing the oil wealth. Every one gets the same cut and there’s no means testing.

Leave a Reply

Users