If I may make a suggestion, I have different method for lowering the CPI: reduce the price of things! Take the basket of goods that consumers buy, and just go down the list asking whether or not there's anything the government is doing that increases the cost for consumers. For example, if the government levies a tariff or enforces an import quota on something, get rid of that. The government also has programs to deliberately raise the cost of milk, tobacco, raisins, corn, sugar, wheat, and any number of other products through production quotas or by bidding the price up with taxpayer money. Getting rid of these schemes is just generally a good idea. Also, we could look at government programs that result in an increase the cost of education or housing, which is a significant component of consumer expenditures.
Doing this is generally just how to make an economy work: it's what prosperity really is, the increasing ability of people to afford the things they want. Unfortunately, while particular producers can gain a significant benefit by lobbying the government to raise prices, the benefit to consumers is so diffuse that for each individual it's barely noticeable. The government does as it's lobbied. And that's why the feds buy up corn and burn it, just to make sure we can't afford it. Taken as a whole, this amounts to a major structural problem for the American economy. But, hopefully, all this talk about the price of things might get us to talk about what's wrong with the price of things.
Of course, part of the logic of going down the CPI and cutting the price of things that make up a large part of the basket of goods used to calculate inflation is that it doesn't really matter whether the CPI is calculated correctly or not. We just have to lower "inflation", whether accurately or inaccurately calculated, and the deficit will be reduced. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics describes...
For example, in a given supermarket, the Bureau may choose a plastic bag of golden delicious apples, U.S. extra fancy grade, weighing 4.4 pounds to represent the Apples category.If the statistics overestimate the effect of this, all the better. I kind of wonder why no particularly devious President has thought up the idea of taxing all apples except fancy grade golden delicious apples in bags weighing exactly 4.4 pounds, which would be subsidized. Maybe too blatant, but you get the idea. We could ban sales taxes (included) and force states to rely on income taxes (not included). This is a good example of "Campbell's Law":the more any quantitative indicator is used for decision-making, the more it will be apt to distort and corrupt the processes it was intended to describe.
On the other hand, manipulating the actual statistics seems like a good way to raise consumer confidence, and according to many commentators that would stimulate the economy itself. Really though, the reason I'd suggest giving attention to the price of things specifically as it makes up the CPI basket is that it averages consumers, rather than consumption, so it's weighted more towards increasing the real incomes of the less well-off.
