Needless to say, boldness hasn’t been a quality associated with Mitt Romney during this campaign. That makes his endorsement of bold and specific proposals for entitlement reform in a speech at Americans for Prosperity last week all the more noteworthy.
Most significant, Romney outlined a plan that would transform Medicare into a premium-support program — while holding current seniors and near-retirees harmless, and retaining an optional form of traditional Medicare (restructured as a premium-charging government insurance plan) to smooth the transition. It differs in details from the plan introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan and supported by the overwhelming majority of congressional Republicans, but the plans share their most critical features: reintroducing choice to seniors and competition to the health-insurance market while defusing the fiscal time bomb that is Medicare before it beggars the nation. In his speech, Romney also vowed to introduce forms of means testing to both Medicare and Social Security, while gently raising the eligibility age of the latter. All of this — as well as his promises to block-grant Medicaid to the states and institute real cuts in discretionary spending — deserves praise.
Advertisement
Romney’s buy-in on entitlement reform puts the center of gravity of the Republican field in more or less the right place on the most momentous issue of the day. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich have embraced premium support in broad outline. Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman have endorsed the Ryan plan explicitly. And though she has since been equivocal, Michele Bachmann voted for it. (Only Herman Cain remains difficult to pin down, though he did signal support for Medicaid block-granting in a recent debate with Newt Gingrich.)
Romney’s plan thus signals the victory within the GOP of Ryan’s vision for a smaller, smarter social safety net, and closes what could have been a dangerous gap on the issue between the executive and legislative wings of the party. Most important, it ensures that the general election will be a race between the liberal-progressive status quo, in which entitlements are both unaffordable and unassailable, and a candidate determined to save the country from the welfare state, and the welfare state from its own excesses.
The politics of entitlements remain toxic, and the political path forward is perilous. To minimize the Democrats’ ability to demagogue on the issue in the general election, the Republican nominee will need to emphasize that reform is not about “ending Medicare as we know it” but about improving the health-care system and, not least, avoiding bankruptcy. He will need to couple the reform message with a credible threat to repeal Obamacare, focusing on especially noxious aspects such as the “IPAB” rationing body. And he will need to contrast the status quowith a compelling alternative vision of the social compact, founded not on an unsustainable dependence but on freedom and growth, a vision he can sell to the middle class and independents.
It won’t be an easy battle to win. But to its credit, the presidential field has shown it is a battle that Republicans are at least willing to fight.
I'm not buying it Kamiller42. His record as a leader and human being are phenomenal.
Wikipedia on Mitt:
1. 305,600 U.S. jobs today with businesses he was involved in helping: Accuride, Brookstone, Dominos, Sealy, Sports Authority, Monsanto, Corning, Staples.
2. Winter Olympics turn-around from -$379M, (oversaw $1.32B budget, 700 employees, 26,000 volunteers) to $100M profit.
3. $4B turnaround. Romney installed as CEO for Bain in 1990 when it was on the verge of collapse. When he left Bain in 1999 to help turn-around the Winter Olympics disaster, Bain had become one of the top equity firms in the nation, with $4B in assets.
He's a leader who got things done in ultra-liberal MA, with an incredible record of success. The idea that the nation would be better off with any other GOP candidate is nuts, so I'd agree that irrational hatred fits better than any rational distrust.
He also ushered in Big Government initiatives like Romneycare and CO2 legislation in MA.
I have great trust for Romney- trust that he is an establishment GOP candidate in the grain of Bush or McCain who will "Talk the Talk" about fiscal conservatism while adding more and more zeroes to our debt.
There is nothing vulgar or irrational about this viewpoint. Romney's record in the private (or semi private) world is laudable. His record in the public sector is laughable.
Mentioned in this article:
Romney
Perry
Santorum
Bachmann
Cain
Huntsman
Gingrich
Hmm, is that everyone? Now, I understand that many think the "mystery candidate" is un-electable, but do you really think he has *less* of a chance than Huntsman, Bachmann, or Santorum? Republicans are afraid Dr. No is going to go 3rd party. This kind of ridiculous non-coverage is going to guarantee it.
That's a good start, Mitt. Nix all those 59-point plans, and model the rest of your plans on this one. Simple and bold. You won't pick up disgruntled Perry, Bachmann and Cain voters with squishiness.
"To minimize the Democrats’ ability to demagogue on the issue in the general election, the Republican nominee will need to emphasize that reform is not about “ending Medicare as we know it” but about improving the health-care system and, not least, avoiding bankruptcy."
Because of Obama's praise of Romney in healthcare, Mitt will be hard to demagogue.
Plus no one can speak to this as effectively and intelligently as Romney.
Maybe Newt but he'll never win against Obama.
Perry, puhlease he's proven no intelligence to speak extemporanously plus with his book FedUp and the scorched earth rhetoric in it, no one will believe that he would reform the programs in a smart way.
I don't like the idea of means testing, whereby those who pay the most in to Social Security and Medicare may receive the least in benefits. It converts those programs into income redistribution schemes.
Unless his plan includes tort reform (with loser pays), market-based reforms, insurance throughout the country available to anyone anywhere, and the choice of a plan that suits the individual rather than a one-size-fits-all, it's a non-starter.
NRO states in this article that pretty much everyone including the Republican Dog Catcher of Erie, Indiana has endorsed Entitlement Reform, but cannot spare a sentence to criticize Mitt for waiting until now to propose this plan?
Where is the editorial titled "Gingrich, Right on Entitlement Reform"?
Where is the editorial titled "Perry, Right on Entitlement Reform"?
Where is the editorial titled "Santorum, Right on Entitlement Reform"?
Where is the editorial....need I go on?
I clicked on the Archive link above to find their praise of sensible conservative plans from other candidates. I see an editorial about Cain's 9-9-9 plan that is critical. I see a post about Perry's economic proposal that is hardly flattering (Titled, "Perry's Rough Draft" and pointing out all sorts of uncertainties.) And then there is a similar glowing editorial in favor of Romney's jobs proposal (a similar "rough draft" that they still find nothing to question).
Please don't try to tell me that Romney's plan has NOTHING to criticize or question. Every day, I regret more my previous support of NRO. If I wanted my money to support the marketing for Romney's campaign I would have contributed to him.
The reason why NRO is behind Romney is because the people at NRO have brains and know that President Obama must LOSE.
Did you get that? We must win in 2012.
Romney gets the moderates. The moderates play kingmaker because only the moderates are willing to vote for the D or the R. They have ALL the political power in this country, all of it. And I don't want to hear any rhetoric for any of you telling me that moderates are just followers who have no ideology. While that may or may not be true, it doesn't disprove my point. You want to win, you nominate the one the moderates like.
They hated McCain. They like Romney (and with good reason.)
Cain and Gingrich had a debate on Saturday where the big three entitlements were the only topic.
It was broadcast on CSPAN. The video is available at CSPAN's website. Not that you'll find much mention or any coverage of the event here at NRO.
Cain and Gingrich both provided fairly detailed proposals regarding how they would fix each program. It is utterly incorrect to write that Cain's positions are difficult to pin down, or that he only "signaled" support for block granting Medicaid. Watch the video.
Also, I much doubt that it is a coincidence that Mr. Romney released any statement at all, much less one on such a contentious issue as entitlements, just the day before two other candidates held a 90 minute long discussion of that subject on national tv.
Again, not that you'll find any coverage of that debate here.
Come on, man. Why don't you guys just endorse Romney? It's pretty plain that's your boy. He'll play ball. You show him poll results that say his base is against "such-and-such," and he'll change his tune. Remember, the Ohio union deal. One day, one message. The next day, new message.
Romney already lost to a loser (John McCain). He'll lose the general against Obama.
Find your soul. Stop thinking about what can win, and start backing what you believe. Or, you don't believe in anything. You'll believe in the same thing that the Democrats do, power.
Cain and Gingrich had a debate on Saturday where the big three entitlements were the only topic.
It was broadcast on CSPAN. The video is available at CSPAN's website. Not that you'll find much mention or any coverage of the event here at NRO.
Cain and Gingrich both provided fairly detailed proposals regarding how they would fix each program. It is utterly incorrect to write that Cain's positions are difficult to pin down, or that he only "signaled" support for block granting Medicaid. Watch the video.
Also, I much doubt that it is a coincidence that Mr. Romney released any statement at all, much less one on such a contentious issue as entitlements, just the day before two other candidates held a 90 minute long discussion of that subject on national tv.
Again, not that you'll find any coverage of that debate here.
