A Washington Whodunit: Who Killed Chained CPI?

The Left wants the scalp: It’s a “question of credit where credit is due,” says one liberal congressman.

National Journal
Alex Seitz-Wald
March 3, 2014, 5:29 p.m.

It’s not every day that lib­er­als jockey to take cred­it for killing something pro­posed by a Demo­crat­ic pres­id­ent, but today, pro­gress­ives are try­ing to turn fa­mil­i­ar ac­cus­a­tions about tea-party le­gis­lat­ive hom­icide against them­selves. We, the Left in­sists, not the con­ser­vat­ives, are the real ex­e­cu­tion­er of a wonky yet con­tro­ver­sial change to So­cial Se­cur­ity that the White House is keep­ing out of its budget pro­pos­al.

“The ex­plan­a­tion that the tea party was the reas­on, that’s the wrong nar­rat­ive,” said a frus­trated Rep. Raul Gri­jalva, the co­chair­man of House Pro­gress­ive Caucus, of the de­mise of chained CPI, a pro­posed change to the way in­fla­tion is cal­cu­lated that would re­duce be­ne­fits to seni­ors over time.

Pres­id­ent Obama first pro­posed use of the chained con­sumer price in­dex in 2011 as part of a “grand bar­gain,” and then in­cluded the plan in the budget he re­leased last year, en­ra­ging lib­er­al Demo­crats on and off Cap­it­ol Hill.

When the White House let it be known a week ago that this year’s budget would not in­clude chained CPI, lib­er­als de­clared vic­tory. But the cel­eb­ra­tion was im­me­di­ately tempered when Wash­ing­ton pun­dits cred­ited (or blamed) Re­pub­lic­ans for their re­fus­al to take Obama’s of­fer.

“Sorry, but lib­er­als had noth­ing to do with the pres­id­ent’s de­cision. It’s Re­pub­lic­ans who killed the So­cial Se­cur­ity pro­pos­al,” wrote The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Zachary Gold­farb in a blog post that cap­tured this view.

White House press sec­ret­ary Jay Car­ney ce­men­ted this emer­ging nar­rat­ive last week when he said the pres­id­ent would still ac­cept chained CPI if Re­pub­lic­ans would hold up their end of the grand bar­gain. “What re­mains ab­so­lutely the case is that the pres­id­ent is ready and will­ing to ne­go­ti­ate a bal­anced de­fi­cit-re­duc­tion deal,” he said, “if Re­pub­lic­ans are will­ing to meet him halfway.”

That simply won’t fly for Gri­jalva. “For us, it’s huge,” he said in an in­ter­view late last week. “There’s a his­tory in­volved, and I wish the cov­er­age would re­flect that his­tory. And if it had done that, there would not be this ques­tion of cred­it where cred­it is due.”

That his­tory in­volves a let­ter from 117 House mem­bers — more than half the Demo­crat­ic Caucus — op­pos­ing chained CPI; op­pos­i­tion from nu­mer­ous Sen­ate Demo­crats, in­clud­ing Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id; and ag­gress­ive or­gan­iz­ing against the White House from out­side pro­gress­ive groups go­ing back sev­er­al years.

“As usu­al, the White House even­tu­ally answered the ques­tion cor­rectly, but got the premise wrong,” said Demo­cracy for Amer­ica’s Neil Sroka, who helped de­liv­er tens of thou­sands of sig­na­tures against chained CPI to Obama’s 2012 cam­paign of­fice. “We’re not stu­pid. We had a pretty good idea that there was a good shot the tea party would not go along with this.”¦ But I think that it’s just silly to make the ar­gu­ment that the White House made last week.”

The ar­gu­ment goes like this: If chained CPI is still on the table, and budget pro­pos­als, since they’re nev­er ac­tu­ally en­acted, are es­sen­tially ab­stract state­ments of mor­al prin­ciple, why both­er re­mov­ing it? “This year their mor­al­ity changed?” Sroka said. “The truth is that the polit­ics have changed.”

Richard Eskow, a seni­or fel­low at the Cam­paign for Amer­ica’s Fu­ture, took to The Huff­ing­ton Post to in­sist that, as his head­line read, “Yes, the Left Killed the Chained CPI.” If the de­cision not to in­clude it this year “isn’t policy-based, it must be polit­ic­al. And if it was a polit­ic­al de­cision, who but the Left could have been provid­ing the polit­ic­al pres­sure?” he writes.

This brings in the fig­ure that pulled the pro­ver­bi­al trig­ger: The White House it­self. A former seni­or Obama ad­viser, who asked that his name not be used so he could speak can­didly, agrees that the White House was re­spond­ing to the Left’s mes­sage, but only be­cause the cal­cu­lus changed once a grand bar­gain was no longer in the cards.

“I think the real­ity is that it wasn’t in­cluded be­cause there was ab­so­lutely no in­dic­a­tion that there was a will­ing­ness to em­brace a bal­anced pack­age that in­cluded in­vest­ments and in­cluded some pro­gress­ive ele­ments,” the former aide said. “So from a polit­ic­al stand­point, what’s the point of in­flam­ing your base when there’s no pos­sib­il­ity of gain in terms of le­gis­la­tion?”

Still, he places the “li­on’s share” of the blame on Re­pub­lic­ans for re­treat­ing from their big talk on en­ti­tle­ment re­form once they real­ized it would have a polit­ic­al cost among their own base, which in­cludes many eld­erly voters, jok­ing that this who­dunit could be called the “Texas Chained-CPI Mas­sacre.”

And Obama was right to pro­pose the change, the former ad­viser said, “be­cause there’s something between elec­tions called gov­ern­ing. And every once in a while, it be­hooves people in of­fice to par­ti­cip­ate in that.”

So who killed chained CPI? The Left? Re­pub­lic­ans? Obama? It seems it was an un­wit­ting con­spir­acy of all three. But while it’s now pretty clear that a grand bar­gain was doomed from the start, the Left did seem to suc­ceed in put­ting enough pres­sure on the White House that it felt com­pelled to form­ally dis­patch the So­cial Se­cur­ity fix when the time came.

What We're Following See More »
ECONOMY STABILIZING
Fed Leaves Rates Alone, but Signals Hikes to Come
48 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

The Federal Open Market Committee today voted to leave interest rates alone, but "upgraded its assessment of the economy’s recent performance and said near-term risks to the outlook have diminished, effectively leaving the door open to raise rates later this year, possibly as early as September."

Source:
CHARM OFFENSIVE
Pence Is Trump’s Man on Capitol Hill
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Spurred by VP pick Mike Pence, a former congressman with close ties to many lawmakers, the Trump campaign in recent weeks has stepped up its courtship of wary Capitol Hill Republicans. And the efforts appear to be bearing fruit." Central to the charm offensive: invitations to more than a dozen "Senate and House members into his family’s private box for some power-schmoozing with him and his kids" during the Republican National Convention.

Source:
PAUL RYAN: STOP IT
Trump Encourages More Spying by Russia
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump essentially encouraged more Russian espionage against Democrats in a press conference this morning. "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” That prompted Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker Paul Ryan to say: “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election.”

Source:
ONE MORE INVESTIGATION
IRS Investigating Clinton Foundation
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Investigations are never far from the Clintons, and here's another: At the behest of "dozens" of Republican lawmakers, the IRS is opening a fraud investigation into the Clinton Foundation."The move signals a shift from the IRS's announcement last year that it would not look into allegations of financial irregularities at the well-connected charity."

Source:
INFIGHTING AMONG COMMISSIONERS TO BLAME
Report Details Terrible Morale at FEC
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Bickering commissioners, ineffective managers and lousy internal communication rank among the top reasons why the Federal Election Commission" has some of the worst morale in the federal government. That's the conclusion of an inspector general's report, which put "the most blame on the FEC’s six commissioners: three Democratic appointees and three Republican appointees who have regularly criticized one another and frequently (but not exclusively) deadlocked on high-profile political issues before them."

Source:
×