I haven't been writing about the various trial balloons and back-and-forths in the
fiscal cliff austerity phase-in negotiations. But I do want to make a comment on the latest one. From Ezra Klein, there's rumors that there will be more revenue, some extended unemployment insurance, and additional stimulus money. However, "the Democrats’ headline concession will be accepting chained-CPI, which is to say, accepting a cut to Social Security benefits." Krugman isn't sure if this is better than no deal.
I think it's terrible, and the best way to understand it is by comparing it to the two reasons some liberals, Kevin Drum for instance, give for making a deal on Social Security. This is not my argument, but it's a useful comparison. The first reason is that by proactively changing Social Security you can secure a deal that has more revenue and fewer cuts than you would otherwise. The second reason is that by making a deal on Social Security you take the issue off the policy table. Sure, the people who think Social Security is a form of tyranny will still be after it. But all the deficit scolds will pack up and go home on the issue.
This deal would do neither. You'd cut Social Security without putting in any new revenue. And it wouldn't be sufficient to close the long-term gap, so the issue would stay on the table. Indeed, it's obvious that Very Serious People would view this as a "downpayment" on future cuts, and require any future attempts to get more revenue for Social Security, say by raising the payroll tax cap, to involve significant additional cuts.
From CBO's Social Security Policy Options, you can see 30 options for Social Security.
The CBO puts the 75-year actuarial balance deficit at 0.6 percent, and this chart shows how much of that 0.6 percent would be filled by various options. The last one, basing the cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) on the chained CPI-U, is only 0.2, or about a third of what the deficit hawks will say is necessary. From the CBO, it would only extend the trust fund four years. There will be demands for going back to Social Security in the years ahead, and those changes will not come solely from revenue increases. That's giving up a major piece for nothing in terms of Social Security, which is a very bad deal.
Personally, I think changing the COLA is a bad idea in general. The elderly face a higher rate of inflation since their spending is so dependent on health care, which is difficult to adjust or comparison shop for (the idea behind chaining the inflation rate). More importantly, of the three legs of the stool of retirement security - Social Security, private savings and employer savings plans - the two that aren't Social Security are struggling. Employer pensions will become less secure and less available going forward. Housing wealth was wiped out in the crash. 401(k)s appear to have been a great way to shovel tax savings to the rich, but are in no shape to take over for a lack of pensions. Median wages have dropped in the recession, and are likely to show little growth in the years ahead, which makes building private savings harder. Social Security will become more important, not less, in the decades ahead. Its benefits should be expanded, not cut.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum has a similar conclusion on the deal.