My first class teaching while using my new Seminary degree is nearly in the books. REL 120 - World Religions officially ends on May 2 (at least class does... there will still be grading to do of essays and presentations). As you might expect, dear reader, the teacher learned right along with the students. And fortunately, of the trial and error part of a new class, the error part was really the smaller of the two by a stretch. Most of the things I tried came off well, and the students reacted quite positively for the most part. A real hit were the outside speakers, who came in two at a time, 6 out of the 8 weeks, and talked about their religious affiliation, and the personal impact it has on how they live out their lives here in the metro (I use that last term loosely). They represented these religions:
Hindu
Sikh
Jainist
Buddhist
Jewish
Catholic
Protestant
Islam
Baha'i
Universalist/Unitarian
Native American
It helped a lot, I think, to lift this course out of the dryness of an academic text and put a human face and voice on it. At least that's the students tell me.
So, the last test is administered this week (thank God for scannable forms and a grading machine!), then the essays and presentations are due on the last night.
Maybe I'll get retained as an adjunct instructor and get to teach PHIL 120 - Intro to Philosophy next year! Except where am I going to find current devotees of Aristotle and Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to come in and speak?
Monday, April 22, 2013
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Chained to the CPI
The Concord Coalition is an organization I generally agree with when it comes to government fiscal policy, but this week they sent an email singing the praises of something called the "Chained CPI" as a replacement for the "regular" CPI as the COLA in Social Security. It's one of the "under the radar" ways that fiscal hawks think they can make a dent in the Federal debt and budget deficits without really touching (very much) the "third rail" of politics: Entitlement programs.
They supplemented their own positions with links to this article explaining the case for switching the COLA index, and to this article criticizing the NY Times for opposing the switch. The CC's support is all within a larger strategy of trying to eliminate government debt, a noble cause and one which I support. However, they got it wrong on this one. What they are advocating is a bait & switch, a broken promise, a failed trust. I had to call them on it, had to write them back. So I did:
"Folks, I cannot disagree with you more on your advocacy of the Chained CPI as a better way to measure inflation. While it may indeed better reflect reality when it comes to how people deal with inflation, what it does NOT do well is function as a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). The presumption is that COLAs are in place for the express purpose of "keeping people whole", in terms of what it takes to maintain their standard of living, which is the rationale behind its inclusion in Social Security. If you go to the Chained CPI as the COLA standard, you are no longer keeping people whole, you are forcing them to change! In essence you require that, to keep whole, they adapt in the exact same way as other consumers do to inflation: by changing what they purchase to mniimize the inflationary effect.
"But that is not, I submit, what a COLA is for - it's not to ensure that 'seniors' adapt to inflation & make sacrifices like everyone else. It's to be sure they don't HAVE to! While I am not of retirement age yet, I can recognize a shell game when I see one, even if it's being played on someone else. In this particular shell game, the government promises COLAs (the bait), and then changes what COLA means (the switch). I say shame on the government for suggesting it, and shame on you for supporting it. Keeping your promises, whether at the level of the individual, or at the level of society, is crucial to trust, both personal and public."
[response pending]
They supplemented their own positions with links to this article explaining the case for switching the COLA index, and to this article criticizing the NY Times for opposing the switch. The CC's support is all within a larger strategy of trying to eliminate government debt, a noble cause and one which I support. However, they got it wrong on this one. What they are advocating is a bait & switch, a broken promise, a failed trust. I had to call them on it, had to write them back. So I did:
"Folks, I cannot disagree with you more on your advocacy of the Chained CPI as a better way to measure inflation. While it may indeed better reflect reality when it comes to how people deal with inflation, what it does NOT do well is function as a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). The presumption is that COLAs are in place for the express purpose of "keeping people whole", in terms of what it takes to maintain their standard of living, which is the rationale behind its inclusion in Social Security. If you go to the Chained CPI as the COLA standard, you are no longer keeping people whole, you are forcing them to change! In essence you require that, to keep whole, they adapt in the exact same way as other consumers do to inflation: by changing what they purchase to mniimize the inflationary effect.
"But that is not, I submit, what a COLA is for - it's not to ensure that 'seniors' adapt to inflation & make sacrifices like everyone else. It's to be sure they don't HAVE to! While I am not of retirement age yet, I can recognize a shell game when I see one, even if it's being played on someone else. In this particular shell game, the government promises COLAs (the bait), and then changes what COLA means (the switch). I say shame on the government for suggesting it, and shame on you for supporting it. Keeping your promises, whether at the level of the individual, or at the level of society, is crucial to trust, both personal and public."
[response pending]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)