Even with House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) deciding not to enter the fray for the GOP presidential nomination, his entitlement-reforming budget resolution, approved by the House earlier this year, is almost certain to play a prominent role in the race. Whichever candidate Republicans select will be forced to either defend it against the inevitable onslaught of Democratic “Death to Granny” scare tactics, or put forward a compelling alternative plan of his or her own. If the conservative uproar following Newt Gingrich’s comments on Meet the Press in May — in which he called Ryan’s plan “radical” and an example of “right-wing social engineering” — is any indication, the eventual GOP nominee could find it extremely hard not to embrace the underlying concept of sweeping entitlement reform, although at this point in the race, no candidate seems eager to do so.
Advertisement
So, when it comes to support for the Ryan plan — and the issue of entitlement reform in general — how do the top-tier candidates stack up?
As a sitting member of the House, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) is firmly on record in support of the Ryan plan. She was one of 235 Republicans who voted to approve the House budget in April. That said, Bachmann’s public comments following the budget’s passage haven’t exactly come across as full-throated cheerleading. In May (prior to announcing her candidacy), she told Fox News’s Chris Wallace that she “put an asterisk” on her support for the plan.
“One position that I’m concerned about [is] shifting the cost burden to senior citizens,” Bachmann said. “Seniors are saying, ‘Look, I’m not in a position to be able to handle that.’ I also share that real fear; that’s why I put that asterisk out there.” Bachmann went on to say that she was not “wedded” to the specific Medicare reforms outlined in Ryan’s plan, but stressed the need to find “efficiencies and cost cuttings and savings in health care, but how we get there is open to discussion.”
On her campaign website, Bachmann touts her vote for the House budget, writing: “The Ryan Plan is just the very first step on health reform, and I voted for it with an asterisk with further reforms in mind.” But she has provided few details as to what those “further reforms” might entail.
A number of conservative commentators have raised the question of whether Bachmann’s apparent hedging is at odds with her claims to having a “titanium spine” when it comes to taking strong positions on difficult issues. For example, her firm opposition to raising the debt ceiling was, given the fiscal reality, an implicit endorsement of sweeping entitlement cuts and reforms. Her support for specific proposals that any serious effort at entitlement reform would have to include — raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits, for example — has been vague at best. All told, Bachmann has yet to explicitly (i.e., sans asterisk) embrace a specific plan to accomplish this, or even indicate that she will put forward a plan of her own.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has gone so far as to say he would sign the House budget into law as president. Still, he too has been hesitant when it comes to the specifics. When Ryan unveiled his plan in April, Romney praised the budget chairman for “setting the right tone for finally getting spending and entitlements under control,” and described himself as “on the same page” with Ryan. In May, Romney announced that he would release his own plan to reform Medicare that would “not be identical, but share objectives” with the Ryan plan, but he offered few details as to when he would unveil said plan. “There’s a lot you’re going to expect from me on Medicare,” he said.
Regarding such expectations, however, Romney raised some eyebrows in April when, as reported by Ben Smith at Politico, he told a group of donors in New York City that he “didn’t know” if significant entitlement reform was even possible, given the inherent political difficulties. And while his support for letting states “experiment” with health-care programs may find favor with some, the approach Romney supported in Massachusetts is undeniably similar to that of Obamacare, and one of Ryan’s stated objectives in drafting his budget was to present a viable alternative to the president’s approach.
Sounds like a bit of political expediency by the current crop of Republican presidential contenders. Ryan will have to do the heavy-lifting again as the budget 'educator-in-chief'. Don't envy him the task but he is a courageous man.
When I saw the Ryan doppelgänger throwing granny off the cliff advert, call me imaginative but I thought it was Nancy Pelosi.
“Leaders change polls.”
Ryan is right, and it's excruciatingly frustrating seeing an entire crop of GOP presidential contenders unable or unwilling to articulate a detailed plan for fiscal sanity. As evidenced by the type and tenor of the critique, the lack of support for Ryan's plan among the general public is a mile wide and an inch deep. Sheer ignorance can be overcome with time and education.
Well, Ryan had the chance to lead and defend his budget on the national stage, and he passed. Even he realizes it's a political albatross. Cordially, Bill
Medicare vouchers are politically unsellable. Period. Newt Gingrich was correct back in May:
"For Jesus said, 'A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.' And hearing this, Newt knew that he himself was a prophet, sent to warn his people, who were of late in thrall to the teachings of Paul of Kenosha. Wherefore on the Sabbath, Newt said unto David of Gregory, 'It is written that whosoever among the Republicans preacheth of privatizing Medicare, yea, though they call it not by its true name, shall be smote by the voters and driven from the House of Plenty to seek jobs in the private sector ere their time...."
Social Security is not the cause of our current debt/deficit problems. People have been (forced) to pay into this system and to threaten to take way (steal) their promised benefits is not productive. Medicare/Medicaid are different animals and require more immediate reform. We need to put forward a plan that will balance the budget (all agencies/programs including defense) within 3yrs. While this plan must have significant spending cuts, policies that encourage economic and job growth are critical for this country's long range financial health. After (and only after) balancing the budget we can then have a discussion on how to provide long range SS reform.
This is what I want from our presidential and congressional candidates.
When/If it becomes clear that Perry will win the nomination, Perry should extend (and Paul Ryan should accept) an early VP offer thereby unifying all Republicans. Ryan would give Perry policy gravitas complementing Perry's executive experience and would temper Perry's "cowboy" persona. It would also signal his commitment to moving forward with entitlement reform and Ryan fans could take comfort that Ryan would also be set up to eventually beccome President after Perry's term. While I'd hope to see Ryan take out Obama in the debates, seeing him dispose of Biden would be a nice consolation prize.
Every serious Republican candidate has flip flopped on the Ryan plan except Ryan. Had he chose to run, Ryan might have too, but as a non candidate he can afford the luxury of his convictions. The most egregious flop has to be Perry's, as he had to disown everything he ever thought, said, or wrote about Social Security . And his book has only been out a year and a half! Well, they're politicians, what else could we expect? Cordially, Bill
This is still the Ryan Budget that increases spending $6,000,000,000,000 over the revered 10 year time frame right?
Not a whole lot to embrace no matter where you stand as potential GOP nominee. For Tea Party Cons it's not enough; for Moderate to Left leaning Republicans, it makes it impossible to please everyone. Quite the dilemma now that the Mods have proven to we Cons that they'd rather join in with the Dems to keep on spending!
The Tea Party has succeeded in drawing attention to the immediate need for cost cutting. I personally, am not against a deal calling for 10 to 1 cost cutting to tax increase. We will need more than ten years to get to a balanced budget. What's important is that we get onto that trajectory. Ryan understands this, and so does Romney. If that makes them RINO's in the eyes of those on the far right, so be it. Romney/Perry 2012.
If the budget is not balanced for another 10yrs it is likely the debt will be well in excess of $20T. If interest rates rise to a more normal 4% this would imply an $800B annual interest payment on the debt. This kind of trajectory is one that is followed by a loud explosion and misery. That's why this country can't afford to have a RINO in the WH. These deficit spending policies perpetuate fraud on Americans (inflation, broken social promises). The faster the budget is balanced, the less pain incurred. If a politician can't produce a plan to balance it in 3yrs and start reducing the debt, then he isn't up to the job and doesn't deserve my vote.
You're comfortable with 10:1 tax cuts to tax increases, are you Bob Ennis? Well I'm bloody NOT! Pols have spent into succeeding generations but you're O.K. with giving them MORE? I'm tired of government taking the money from MY pockets, earned by MY labor and efforts, that ME and MY family can better use just so they can purchase their next election. The reason the hopefuls are wavering is because too many voters are wavering as well. When you put up one hand to say "Stop!" but you coyly beckon with the other, of course they will waver. Enough is far too much.
Paul Ryan never claimed his Roadmap was the be-all end-all solution to over three-quarters of a century of political disregard for Constitutional limits on power, especially the power to tax, spend, and redistribute the wealth of this nation. He said this is the starting point, the debate-changer, and in this he has already succeeded. But the moment we take the pressure off, pols will blow us off again.
I really was hoping for a President Paul Ryan. I will settle for a Vice President Paul Ryan no matter which partially capable current candidate gets the nod, just so long as he's the one who is allowed to continue to move us in the fiscally responsible direction he's identified.
As much as some folks would like to see an immediate slashing, we need to take a bit of time transitioning back to where we ought to be; there are too many people used to being dependent on everyone else who delude themselves into thinking its the nebulous "gubmint" that's supporting them. If we don't ease into reverse we will trigger chaos on a scale similar to Greece and England, and frankly, I've already been through Watts riots twice -- I have no desire to go that route again.
It has been decades since I actually support a politician, as opposed to settling for the lesser of evils, but Paul Ryan does it for me, however he can get it done.
Well, MO, you better move to Wisconsin's first congressional district, cause that's the only place he'll be running in the forseeable future! About a thousand times better place to live than LA anyway. Cheers, Bill
"Whichever candidate Republicans select will be forced to either defend it against the inevitable onslaught of Democratic “Death to Granny” scare tactics, or put forward a compelling alternative plan of his or her own."
I don't agree that the Republican candidate (or President Obama, for that matter) will be "forced" to say anything substantively about entitlement programs.
One of the reasons is that there is a third option to adopting Rep. Ryan's proposal or coming up with a "compelling alternative plan" (and I'm assuming that by this term Mr. Stiles means something "big" that would constitute "reform"):
That option is simply to deal with each program's deficit on a year-by-year basis (or maybe a two-to-three year at-a-time basis).
That option may not be satisfactory to many. It may not even be a good idea. But it's pretty much what we've been doing through the last few Democratic and Republican Presidential Administrations and it is the path of least resistance.
This option does NOT mean, for example, that Medicare spending will constitute some ridiculous portion of GDP by Two Thousand and Whatever. It just means that we'll deal with one or two or three years' at a time worth of spending, taxation and deficits in each program.
We may get tired of doing so or run into specific roadblocks that require something bigger than a periodic "fix" - either eventuality will increase the political support for some bigger "fix" (ranging from a massive increase in payroll taxes to complete abolishment/replacement of the programs) - but I don't think that "muddling through" - for the next 4-8 years if not for the next 40-80 years - is an unlikely scenario.
Follow
