What if I told you we could raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, and end the awful cliff showdown for good by changing one obscure policy? Ladies and gentlemen: Meet chained CPI.
Take, for example, the new proposal that some Republicans and Democrats think might end this terrible cliff showdown for good. It would involve a simple change to the way we measure cost-of-living changes. The proposal is called chained consumer price index -- or chained CPI.
Please don't run away. Yes, this sounds like an awfully fusty and complicated idea. That's somewhat the point, as Matt Yglesias mischievously points out, since fusty and complicated ideas are the least likely to raise the ire of voters who don't understand them. But chained CPI, in addition to being key to a budget deal, is also simple to understand.
EASY AS C-P-I
Each year, wages and prices tend to go up. You know that already. But by how much? Washington wants to know. Social Security checks are supposed to grow each year to keep up with the cost of living, and tax brackets are supposed to go up each year to avoid a stealth tax increase on households.
Today, Washington tracks cost-of-living changes with various inflation measures that calculate the price of a "basket of goods." That's good for keeping track of a finite set of prices. But what if people start buying stuff outside that finite basket? A classic example: If the price of romaine lettuce skyrockets, today's inflation measure assumes your cost-of-living would go up. In the real world, though, you'd just buy more iceberg lettuce.
Washington's inflation measure is arguably too generous. It assumes that people don't substitute similar goods when one thing gets too expensive.
The solution is to create a "chain" between each month's basket of goods to provide "a more realistic measure of inflation," Marc Goldwein explained. This "chained" index would save between $200 billion and $300 billion over the next decade by very, very slowly cutting Social Security and raising taxes.
It's easy to see why a "more accurate" (i.e.:slower-growing) inflation measure would cut Social Security. Checks wouldn't go up as much year after year. But why would taxes go up?
Imagine there is a tax bracket at $100K. You make $99K. Each year, your wage and that tax bracket rise by 2%. Now, what happens if the tax bracket's inflation slows down and you keep getting little 2% raises? You'll pass into the next bracket and pay more taxes on your top dollars. That's how a "more accurate" (i.e.:slower-growing) inflation measure would raise some people's taxes.
All told, chaining CPI would cut Social Security
spending by about $112 billion in the next decade and taxes would go up by about $90 billion. The compounded savings, including on interest payments, would be about $300 billion. They would look like this:
A GOOD IDEA?
Putting a chain on CPI has attracted support from Republicans who'd like to cut Social Security, Democrats who want to appear receptive to entitlement fixes, and moderates everywhere who argue that our current inflation measure is too generous.
They all might be right.
But while some have argued that "chained CPI" isn't a spending cut or tax increase, it's clear that the outcome of chained CPI is, unavoidably, spending cuts and tax increases. It cuts Social Security the most for the people who live the longest (they do tend to be richer) and it raises moderately on workers who earn a wage that is close to a new tax bracket. There is a real risk that low-income seniors who live long lives could see smaller Social Security checks than they would today. But if this moderate and slow-moving deficit saver is the linchpin to an otherwise fair deal, Republicans and Democrats can do much worse than adopting a chained CPI.
More From The Atlantic
- Texas A&M Doesn't Need a Times Square Billboard to Congratulate Its Heisman Winner
- Marco Rubio's Terrible Idea About the Fed Is Just What It Needs
- The Mystery of Housing's Jobless Recovery
- Politics & Government
- Budget, Tax & Economy