On those rare occasions when I find myself not immediately agreeing with something Ramesh writes or says, I set out to discover why I am wrong and he is right, and usually I find the reason pretty quickly. But on the subject of his op-ed in today’s New York Times—the question of whether House Republicans should propose to take on entitlement reforms—I am still unpersuaded.
Ramesh argues that Republicans should stay away from proposing reforms to Medicare and Social Security unless President Obama proposes some reforms of those programs first. “Reform is impossible this year or next unless President Obama takes the lead on it,” he writes. “What’s more, Republicans have no mandate for reform, and a failed attempt will only set back the cause.”
Ramesh does not deny that we have to reform our entitlements to avoid a fiscal catastrophe; and I suspect he also agrees with the substance of the reforms that some conservatives in Congress (most notably Paul Ryan) have proposed. In fact, he writes that Republicans should pursue such reforms when it comes to Medicaid (transforming Medicaid into a defined-benefit system funded by federal block grants to the states), but not Medicare or Social Security. Reforms of those programs are surely essential, he writes, but the Republican House should not put them on the table, as the political costs would be too high. Instead, he writes, “reformers should blame Mr. Obama for the lack of progress and work to make entitlements a litmus-test issue in the Republican presidential primaries. The goal should be to nominate someone willing to make a strong case for reducing entitlement growth as part of a larger strategy to restore American prosperity.”
Given that goal, with which I very much agree, I think a strategy of taking no action and blaming Obama for inaction would be a little peculiar. Rather, House Republicans should themselves begin the work of making a strong case for reducing entitlement growth as part of a larger strategy to restore American prosperity. The 2012 House budget resolution, which will be proposed this spring, would be the ideal place to do that.
The budget resolution is a framework for authorization and appropriations bills, and it allows the Congress not only to establish specific spending guidelines for the year but also to lay out longer-term priorities and goals, and to sketch out a vision of how to contend with the country’s fiscal challenges. There was no budget resolution last year—the Democratic leaders of the 111th Congress, for the first time since the current budget process began in the 70s, chose not to produce one. But the year before, in the course of the FY 2010 budget debate in the spring of 2009, House Republicans proposed a budget resolution as an alternative to the Democratic majority’s budget, and in that alternative (which you can read here) they laid out some significant entitlement reforms, especially Medicare reforms. They proposed to leave benefits as they are now for people who are 55 or older—and so are either already retired or near retirement. For younger people, the structure of Medicare would be transformed into a defined contribution program which, rather than directly paying for services in an open-ended way, would give each senior a generous premium-support benefit (with additional help those who are oldest, sickest, and poorest) which they would use to purchase private health insurance of their choice. This would work like today’s prescription drug benefit, which has come in under budget and which is very popular with seniors. They also proposed some very modest Social Security reforms, which were not to take effect for decades. (Even the more ambitious reforms in Paul Ryan’s Roadmap are fairly modest—optional individual accounts, some means-testing of benefits, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages, and slowly raising the retirement age.)
137 Republicans voted for that resolution in 2009—including every member of the leadership and just about every Republican who was in Congress then and has returned in the 112th. But Ramesh proposes that Republicans now backtrack, and not include even such modest reforms in the first budget resolution they propose as a House majority.
I understand, of course, that the case he makes is a tactical one—it’s about how to maximize the ability of congressional Republicans to get things done in this congress, to make progress on the most important debates of the day, and to make further gains (hopefully also winning the Senate and the White House) in 2012. But I don’t think those tactical considerations in fact lead to the conclusion that Republicans should abandon entitlement reform.
The dynamics of a divided Congress (which we haven’t really seen since the mid-80s) mean that very little of what Republicans pass in the House will actually be enacted as-is into law. Rather than negotiate with themselves, they need to pass legislation that they believe would make for good policy and politics, and then negotiate with the Senate and the President. I don’t think it’s simply the case, as Ramesh suggests, that Republicans should only take risks for legislation they expect will be signed into law. That would argue for a do-nothing House. Rather, they should take risks for legislation that will define the Republican policy agenda, define the negotiations that must take place between Republicans and Democrats in the course of this congress, define the most important policy debates of the day, and define the party in the minds of voters in the years to come.
Moreover, they should take risks to pass legislation that will define the Republican presidential primary race in 2012. As Ramesh says, the next Republican nominee will have to present a real entitlement-reform agenda. The Republican House should make sure of that by setting the bar for such an agenda, rather than setting an example of excessive timidity on the subject. They should set that bar through their budget resolution—which will serve as a kind of vision document for the Republican agenda. Passing that resolution will not mean enacting entitlement reforms—the resolution does not become law, and surely the Senate Democrats will pass a very different budget anyway. But it will at least mean putting down a marker and committing Republicans to real entitlement reform.
Without such reform, there is simply no way to address the government’s fiscal problems. It is impossible to cut discretionary spending enough to balance the budget in the long term (and as the Democrats will find, it is also impossible to raise taxes enough to do so). The basic structure of our welfare state, and especially our Great Society health-care entitlements, is going to have to be changed. It can be changed in a way that keeps a robust safety net in place and does not disrupt people’s lives or plans yet still restrains the growth of government and makes these programs sustainable—and indeed, that uses them to bring our larger health-care cost problem under control rather than exacerbating that problem. But such gradual, sensible reforms are only going to be possible for a little while longer. If we let too much time pass, the fiscal situation of these programs will leave no alternative but harsh austerity. Entitlement reform must happen soon, and Republicans need to make it clear to voters that they have a set of well-developed, smart, achievable ideas for making it happen—that they have a vision of limited and effective government that will allow for economic growth, social mobility, and a safety net.
Are voters ready to hear that? I’m not sure. There is no question that putting such reforms on the table carries risks. But there has never been a better time to do so (because the crisis and the spending binge of the past few years has persuaded a sizeable portion of the public that something must be done to change the course we are on), and there may never be a better one (because we are nearing the point when a modest gradual solution will no longer suffice). Republicans have to prepare voters to hear that message in the 2012 election, and running away from that task after winning a large House majority does not seem to me like the best way to do so. Given the available options, proposing a general outline of entitlement reforms in the budget resolution does seem to me like the best way to do so.
Ramesh's proposition is a simple one: Voters don't want the kind of entitlement reforms Republicans want to propose - if we propose them now, we'll tip our hand too soon -- we must "trick" the voters by not doing anything and lulling them into a false sense of complacency until they elect Republicans in 2012 and then --- WHAMO! Don't you get it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery well said, Mr. Levin. Part of the reason Congress made such dramatic gains is that voters want to start seeing changes NOW. People realize that even if the measures do not make it past the Senate and/or the presidents desk at least the republicans are doing everything they can to make some very important changes. If these changes fail now, then we try AGAIN with (hopefully) a republican Senate and President.
I think any amount of waiting could be political suicide. The people want and the country needs these things to happen now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Ramesh argues that Republicans should stay away from proposing reforms to Medicare and Social Security unless President Obama proposes some reforms of those programs first."
A coward is one who waits for another to act and does not have the courage of his convictions. Did America just get through electing a bunch of cowards or is Ramesh asking for Republicans to act like cowards while they wait for Obama to set the narrative? I don't think either one is preferable.
"'Reform is impossible this year or next unless President Obama takes the lead on it,' he writes. 'What’s more, Republicans have no mandate for reform, and a failed attempt will only set back the cause.'"
Except that the attempt to reform was set back the minute Social Security and Medicare were signed into law. How I wish the Republicans THEN weren't very cowardly and followed the herd to pass Social Security and Medicare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe this must be done with a clear mind and an eye towards what the Democrats experienced in getting healthcare passed. They went for healthcare at the expense of all else and ignored public sentiment. Republicans must get the ball rolling, to be sure, but they cannot become obsessed with it when the economy is sure to remain struggling for the next 22 months. The fact that nothing can pass makes it easier: propose a simple bill that the public can support, pass it, and if the Democrats refuse to compromise then you've got an issue for November. Don't spend weeks and weeks negotiating, don't make it a huge bill with nasty surprises, and *don't overreach* in terms of impact; we don't have the mandate for it.
An excellent post, Mr. Levin, but I think I lean more towards Mr. Ponuru on this one. Since we can't accomplish much, it is all a matter of strategery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's funny. Having Barry lead on entitlements is like having the French to lead in war.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent post - I totally agree.
Ramesh is right that entitlement reform must play heavily in the 2012 election, but the GOP House must act to tee it up as a winning issue. It will be hard to argue that reform is urgently necessary if a GOP controlled House has taken no action on it in 2 years.
I think the better play is to take advantage of the reality that Obama and the Dem Senate plan on stopping anything you pass by passing something we can be proud of - real reform. No need for messy negotiations with Dems that will water it down, no need to strike backroom deals. Just pass a robust plan that will make these entitlements sustainable. Then challenge the Dem Senate to pass an alternative. Of course, for reasons political and structural, that won't happen. So run on that: we (the GOP) have a plan, we debated it on the House floor and we passed it. It SAVES the social safety net. The Dems have no plan, refuse to produce one, and their failure will lead to the collapse of the safety net.
And you're also right that a serious position on entitlement reform should be a litmus test of the 2012 GOP nominee. No excuses, the candidate must be able to hold their own across the stage from Obama on entitlements and healthcare.
Thanks, WT
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am sorry, but Ponnuru's reasoning is a pure 'ruling class', insider politics, rather than having anything to do with ideas of ideology. His implicit goal is not to move the center of political gravity to the right, in a conservative direction, but to give a piece of advice to the Republicans how to maximize their short term political gains and electoral prospects under the exogenously defined ideological climate. Left controls the game, and we should try to score higher in that game.
Isn't that a bit of conflict of interest; National Review is supposed to be a conservative beacon (isn't it?), a journal bravely and consistently developing and advocating the right wing political ideas and solutions, irrespective of the effects that could have on any politician. Ponnuru is acting as a Republican party election strategist instead. And that's the problem with the conservative movement today; it is full of and dominated by the people who confuse the Republican party success with the advancement of the conservative cause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile both Ramesh and Yuval make good arguments, I think Yuval has the better of the argument, and here is why: if Republicans are going to ask for control of both Houses of Congress in 2012 as well as of the White House, they are going to have to convince people that their policy agenda is specific enough and real enough that people will vote for the desired result in 2012. If a majority of people remain convinced that the GOP talks a good game, but will go back to their pre-2006 ways if they get full power, the results will not be good.
I therefore agree with Yuval that the GOP must make some attempt to sell to the public, and then propose and implement through appropriate legislation, an approach to deal directly with the entitlements problem, particularly Medicaid and Medicare (at least in the House; we pretty much agree it is unlikely to get through the Senate at this time). When the Democrats oppose again what people would favor (especially on health care), it becomes a prime issue to hammer the Democrats with in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is very difficult for a party in opposition that controls only one house to develop, coalesce around and lead the nation on an issue with such profound, far reaching consequences. Only the president can do this. The 2012 election will be about which man and which party the nation trusts to resolve the entitlement issue. The Republicans can draw attention to the the issue and stimulate a national discussion, but that's about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRamesh is correct, as usual.
The Republicans have a mandate for stopping Obamacare and additional stimulus boondoggles. They can and should work out sensible accounting proposals for major middle class entitlements, and their presidential candidates in 2012 should make the fiscal responsibility and intergenerational fairness case for them, in the course of the 2012 election. But the Republicans would be foolish to hand the Dems the issue of "saving social security" against perceived Republican green eyeshade overreach in that election, by kamikaze reform bills in this congress.
It is all well to say we can't afford inaction, but the reality is you can't save the fisc a dime by putting up bills that never pass. And while Obama is president, no serious entitlement reform bill is going to pass.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith control of only one house of Congress, and with a President who, despite a single recent speech, is an expert at demagoguery, the only thing that can be accomplished by proposing reform is to educate about reform. Even that will be difficult when you add the MSM to the equation.
There is a forum for exploring alternatives and educating the public and that is Congressional hearings. For the next 18 months, the House Republicans should make sure that numerous hearings be held which point out the clearly unsustainable nature of these programs and lay out workable alternatives. Only in the final 9 months or so before the 2012 elections, after the issues have been laid out for the public, should legislation be proposed. That will put the Democrats on the record before the election and provide great campaign fodder.
Properly document bad policy and votes, and you reconstruct "Obamacaregate". Reach too far, and you risk pulling a "Gingrich".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMakavic, your logic is brilliant--there's nothing more people want than to see their Social Security checks cut by 50 percent -- they want change NOW. The answer is simply to go with it--openly campaign on cutting Social Security and Medicare, we'll sweep the House, Senate and Presidency in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetcmcelroy...that is good and funny stuff..."Barry"...can you imagine, people called him Barry..."Barry Obama"...sounds like a shampoo...it is my honor to intorduce the POTUS Barry Obama...brrrahhh!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"entitlement reform"?
I find the intentional confusion of re-structuring the "entitlements" very troubling, but quite understandable.
By Congress failing to specify whose ox is gored, the public's reaction will be entirely subjective (viz. since they are not told where their interests lie, their opinions can be more easily manipulated by meaningless rhetoric).
The financial interests of those not yet born should be of little concern to Congress: you've already bankrupted them (or at least, those who will pay taxes).
Those already working must understand that not only is there no free lunch, you must pay for someone else's lunch.
Since they have minimal equity in the system, this is unfortunate but unavoidable. They have received no benefit for the contribution they did not make, and pay-as-you-go will be necessary.
Those nearing, at or past retirement age are being (how to say this?) CHEATED of what they invested at gun-point for 40 years, and their plans for retirement are ruined for the benefit of people who failed to make any plans.
We did not vote on it (not very many born before 1923 are politically active today), didn't decide how much to contribute, and could not renounce it in favor of private investment or savings.
Expect nothing but the most adamant resistance to any "entitlement reform", its proponents, and apologists by every person over 50.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnless, of course, you have a way to give us back our contributions and allow us to make different choices of residence and employment retro-actively?
I think Ramesh is wrong,on two fronts.
First, leaving it to Barry to take the lead gives Barry the opportunity to show up with a cosmetic shell game with the numbers and leaves the Republicans open to the charge that they didn't fulfill the mandate they were elected to fulfill.
Second, this is a real issue. The Republicans weren't elected to do nothing. This is a real existential problem for this country, and we need to address it now. Not tomorrow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Larrytex56. The message of November 2, 2010 was we don't like what has happened during the 2008-2010 Congress and we want the damage stopped and undone.
Specifically we want the spending to be reduced to historically traditional levels of GDP and the deficit to be eliminated and the debt to be reduced to where it is rational compared to our GDP. Furthermore we want the radicals neutered that have been put in positions of influence and decision and the radical legislation and regulations undone.
Since the purpose of these regulations and legislation was a good intention, we want Congress to take absorbable sized bites out of the problems of the financial sector excess and deviousness and corruption, the skyrocketing costs of medical care, the creation of an inspired environment for jobs and innovation and the aggressive exploitation of our natural resources so we can stop paying foreign countries for our energy sources. Renewables are an important venture but not in any way sufficient in capacity to offset our us of oil for energy and oil has so many other uses it is idiotic to suppress oil drilling and gas refining.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe elected people who promised this agnda and we expect them to deliver and we'll stand behind them when they do.
As for priorities, we are all willing to sacrifice including accepting modified entitlements, but, we expect Congress to make the hard decisions first and that is to cut heavily into the government spending before attacking entitlements. Zero based budgeting of all departments would be a good start. Reducing the size of the bloated well paid labor force through attrition is a good place to continue. Eliminating nice but not necessary programs is a third action that should be done. There's a ton of money being spent in Energy, Education and Commerce and I'm sure elsewhere that is producing no discernible benefit to anyone but the recipients of the largess. When Congress has straightened out the government, then they can come after the entitlements and we'll be ready for our medicine. And I know it's a lot to ask, but the benefits for Congress are luxurious. I would like to see them forced to live with what the rest of us have to live with.
I'm afraid Clinton was right - "It's the economy, stupid." ObamaCare can be defeated on economic, not ideological grounds. The Republican House should not rise to the bait and distraction of attempting to reform ALL entitlements.
Instead, make ObamaCare the poster child for unsustainable Democrat excess. Americans instinctively understand they can't spend more than they earn. Demonstrate that Democrats are out-of-touch with America - early and often - by making Democrats defend their profligacy.
Then, let the voters throw the bums out in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe viability of the strategy of putting proposals on the table now and risk voter backlash has everything to do with the quality of the presentation of those proposals. The ideal is to face the issues head on, now, with convincing, well presented, arguments. The arguments are difficult to make, and easy to demagogue, and very few candidates are tough enough or good enough rhetorically to make them. Losing the argument would spell disaster, so the pessimism is understandable. But it CAN be done. Think Chris Christie. In his hands, the truth is a truly formidable weapon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat discussion. Normally, I find Ramesh's logic to be razor sharp and spot on. However, Yuval is correct in that Republicans have to stand for something more concrete than their own reelection.
If Republicans take a stand and fight for fiscal restraint and serious government downsizing and reform, at the least, they get the honor of going down swinging for a cause the country believes in. A majority of Americans do see the writing on the wall--that we're broke. The country is living beyond our means. And the Democrats are vulnerable to the charge of promoting corporate welfare and subsidies to fat cat bankers and investment houses like Goldman Sachs.
Doing nothing or little just muddies the waters. We don't need Obama-lite policies. We need radical reform.
Better to more sharply define the differences between the two parties rather than blur the distinctions by playing it safe--as Ramesh seems to be arguing. This may win an election or two--but it won't fundamentally win the hearts and minds of taxpayers or Independents screaming for bold action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhose reform?
There are many different ideas about reform among Republicans. Choosing among those ideas would be a pointless conflict because nothing would be passed.
And then a Presidential nominee will be selected. That person's ideas will control the party platform and be significant to Republicans running at almost every levelk of government. If those ideas are contrary to what Republicans in the House proposed, the main story of the election will be whether the nominee can bring together his own party.
Republicans cannot ignore the entitlement issue, of course. But making certain that the public is concerned about the problems is a good and sufficient gain for the House. The unaffordable new medical entitlement is a good place to start. Hearings in which Democratic pretensions are exposed loudly, specifically the gaming of CBO projections, would be both factual and compelling.
The House can make the case that the country has a severe problem that only gets worse if ignored. All the benefits that seniors rely on are at risk, and Democrats have only made the problems worse. If the President has to talk not about the benefits of the medicine-related legislation but about meeting the devastating costs, that's a huge advantage.
Best to be realistic about what can be accomplished.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse