Author Danny Vinik

Switching to Chained-CPI and How Politicians Spin it

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

I’m getting a bit annoyed at the liberal blogosphere about how they’re spinning the proposal to use chained-CPI for Social Security. Here’s Ezra Klein:

The way we measure inflation right now really does mismeasure inflation. Chained-CPI really is a bit more accurate. But that’s not why we’re considering moving to chained-CPI. If all we wanted to do was correct the technical problem, we could make the correction and then compensate the losers.

But no one ever considers that. The only reason we’re considering moving to chained-CPI because it saves money, and it saves money by cutting Social Security benefits and raising taxes, and it’s a much more regressive approach to cutting Social Security benefits and raising taxes than some of the other options on the table.

The question worth asking, then, is if we want to cut Social Security benefits, why are we talking about chained-CPI, rather than some other approach to cutting benefits that’s perhaps more equitable? The answer is that chained-CPI’s role in correcting inflation measurement error is helpful in distracting people from its role in cutting Social Security benefits. Politicians who are unwilling or unable to offer a persuasive political or policy rationale for cutting Social Security benefits are instead hiding behind a technocratic rationale. We’re not “cutting benefits,” we’re “correcting our inflation measure.”

Emphasis mine. I sympathize with Ezra’s annoyance here. Switching to chained-CPI is being billed as a “technical fix.” If we wanted to implement such a technical fix, we don’t need it to be part of a grand bargain. Social Security benefits should increase with inflation. If we’re using the wrong measure of inflation, then we need to fix that. The reason Republicans are so set on fixing it now is because their ultimate goal is to cut benefits, not to correct the inflation measure. Thus, Ezra’s right when he says:

We’re not “cutting benefits,” we’re “correcting our inflation measure.”

However, Ezra makes the exact same error in the bolded section above. Continue reading “Switching to Chained-CPI and How Politicians Spin it” →

Are Senators Warner and Manchin “Shameless + Untrustworthy?”

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

Here’s a tweet from Time Magazine writer Michael Grunwald:

grunwaldI tweeted with Mr. Grunwald briefly about this and I don’t quite agree. He’s referring to the separate remarks by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) stating that they’ve changed their opinions on gun control and now want stronger regulation.

Grunwald tweeted: “I’m suggesting they’re not really switching their opinion, and people shouldn’t get their hopes up” and “But in our business we don’t have to pretend awful opportunists aren’t awful opportunists. Aurora was shattering too.”

The question comes down to whether you believe Warner and Manchin changed their opinions for political purposes or really had a change of heart. Certainly, none of us knows for sure, but it’s unfair to rule out a change of heart.

Grunwald believes that Virginia Tech, Aurora and every other mass shooting would have been enough to change their minds. The fact that Warner and Manchin are doing so after Friday’s tragic events and now that there is desire for greater gun control demonstrates not a change of hearts, but a politically-motivated decision.

Maybe that’s so, but I’m not so sure.

The reason is: this time is different. It’s sad, but it’s true. The shooting at Newtown has hit people across the country harder than the ones in Aurora and in Oak Creek. Part of it is the sheer number of tragedies this year – there have been 13 shootings with multiple fatalities just in 2012. But it’s more than that.

It’s different from Aurora, Oak Creek and others. This was a targeted attack on the most innocent people in our country in one of the most innocent locations. If an elementary school in a safe town is not safe, nowhere is. That’s not to say that shootings in a movie theater or a temple should not cause widespread outrage and provoke demands for more gun control. But the shooting at Sandy Hood caused an even greater emotional response for the precise reason that it targeted little kids.

That’s what sets Newtown apart from all of the other tragic shootings.

It’s why the petition for the Obama Administration to address gun control has received a record number of signatures. It’s why people everywhere are shaken and demanding new legislation. It may just be why Senators Manchin and Warner have changed their minds.

If it turns out that they are doing so just to gain political points, then Grunwald is right, that is shameless, untrustworthy and revolting. That would be a new low for American politics and I sincerely hope it is not the case. Until I see evidence proving that, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt

 

Who Actually Needs a Kevlar Vest?

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

This is an honest question. Who actually needs a Kevlar vest? The way I see it, there are three groups of people:

  1. Law enforcement, military, security personnel, etc.
  2. Private security and military
  3. Individual people who are expecting to be shot at

The first group certainly needs and deserves the vests. The second group puts their bodies on the line for people as well (although not always law-abiding people). Both of these groups put themselves in harm’s way as part of their jobs. A Kevlar vest is paramount for their protection.

The third group I’m not so sure about. Does any law-abiding person wake up each day and wear a Kevlar vest? I doubt it. Is there any law-abiding person who expects to be shot at and thus purchases a Kevlar vest and wears it constantly? I’m not so sure. Do any people purchase a vest just in case some day they find themselves expecting to be shot at? That sounds more plausible

But if the answer to all these questions is no, then why should individual people be able to buy these?

The idea of a gunman running around in a Kevlar vest is terrifying. In Newton, we saw the beginning of it. Maybe it’s time we reconsider how easy these are to purchase.

Or am I missing a logical, legal use here?

For the first two groups above, we can issue the vest to the personnel and track them. For the third, is there a reason Kevlar vests should be easily available? Wouldn’t restricting the sales of them prevent future gunmen from protecting themselves. The last thing we want is for one of these horrible acts to end with a gunman protected by Kevlar in a shootout with police.

But my question is sincere. Is there a good reason a law-abiding individual would ever expect to be shot at and thus go out a purchase a Kevlar vest? Or even have one around the house just in case there was a time they expected to be shot at? My guess is the answer to my question is yes, there are plenty of people who actually do this. But I’d love to know for sure. Because if the answer is no, then it’s about time we rethink how easy Kevlar Vests are to purchase.