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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
WHO PLAYED THE DONALD?
Longtime Clinton Aide Played Trump in Mock Debates
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

After keeping the information private for most of the lead-up to the debate on Monday, it has been revealed that longtime Clinton aide Philippe Reines has been playing the role of Donald Trump in her debate prep. Reines knows Clinton better than most, able to identify both her strengths and weaknesses, and his selection for a sparring partner shows that Clinton is preparing for the brash and confrontational Donald Trump many have come to expect.

Source:
WEEKEND POLLING ROUNDUP
New Polls Still Show Razor-Thin Margins
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
  • A national Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Clinton leading Trump by just two points among likely voters, 46% to 44%.
  • A national Bloomberg poll out Monday morning by Selzer & Co. has Clinton and Trump tied at 46% in a two-way race, and Trump ahead 43% to 41% in a four-way race.
  • A CNN/ORC poll in Colorado shows likely voters’ support for Trump at 42%, 41% for Clinton, and a CNN/ORC poll in Pennsylvania has Clinton at 45% and Trump at 44%.
  • A Portland Press Herald/UNH survey in Maine has Clinton leading Trump in ME-01 and Trump ahead in ME-02.
THE QUESTION
How Many Times Has the Trump Campaign Emailed Ted Cruz’s Supporters?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 30 times, in the case of some donors. Long before Cruz endorsed Trump—and before he even snubbed the nominee at the Republican National Convention—"the senator quietly began renting his vast donor email file to his former rival, pocketing at least tens of thousands of dollars, and more likely hundreds of thousands, that can be used to bankroll the Texan’s own political future."

Source:
STAKES ARE HIGH
Debate Could Sway One-Third of Voters
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 34% of registered voters think the three presidential debates would be extremely or quite important in helping them decide whom to support for president. About 11% of voters are considered 'debate persuadables'—that is, they think the debates are important and are either third-party voters or only loosely committed to either major-party candidate."

Source:
YOU DON’T BRING ME FLOWERS ANYMORE
Gennifer Flowers May Not Appear After All
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

Will he or won't he? That's the question surrounding Donald Trump and his on-again, off-again threats to bring onetime Bill Clinton paramour Gennifer Flowers to the debate as his guest. An assistant to flowers initially said she'd be there, but Trump campaign chief Kellyanne Conway "said on ABC’s 'This Week' that the Trump campaign had not invited Flowers to the debate, but she didn’t rule out the possibility of Flowers being in the audience."

Source:
×