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 »
Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
2 days ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Trump Draws Laughs, Boos at Al Smith Dinner
3 days ago

After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."

McMullin Leads in New Utah Poll
3 days ago

Evan McMul­lin came out on top in a Emer­son Col­lege poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clin­ton took third with 24%. Gary John­son re­ceived 5% of the vote in the sur­vey.

Quinnipiac Has Clinton Up by 7
3 days ago

A new Quin­nipi­ac Uni­versity poll finds Hillary Clin­ton lead­ing Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” van­ished from the uni­versity’s early Oc­to­ber poll. A new PPRI/Brook­ings sur­vey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a vir­tu­al dead heat, with Trump tak­ing 41% of the vote to Clin­ton’s 40% in a four-way match­up.

Trump: I’ll Accept the Results “If I Win”
3 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.