Okay, Eric Cantor makes it official: the Republicans are doing entitlement reforms (and from the sound of it, Ryan is taking the lead):
Q: Mr. Cantor, in your opening remarks you said that the House Republican budget will include entitlement reforms, unlike the President’s. Could you give a little bit more detail on that? And also could you lay out where you think the playing field is on budget matters? Because you have got a lot of different things going on right now. You have got the 2011 budget you guys are working, on, the 2012 that the President released, your 2012 budget, the debt ceiling. How do you see things playing out and where they stand right now in terms of working with or against the President?
Mr. Cantor: Well, your question is a good one, and all this is going to be sort of moving simultaneously. Where we end up in the fiscal year 2011 expenditures will impact the situation in fiscal year 2012 for sure, so we hopefully will be able to manage bringing down spending to 2008 levels for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and operate with that certainty. Your question about the budget itself and the entitlement inclusion, yes, we will include entitlement reform provisions in our budget, again, unlike the President, and unlike Harry Reid who doesn’t even admit there needs to be any reform of Social Security.
We are going to lead. That is why I said the President missed an opportunity to lead today, to try and address the biggest fiscal challenge we have. And so we are going to lead and include that in our budget. You have heard me say before it is high time for us to begin, from the standpoint where we are talking about reforms needed, that you have a population 55 and older here, and we need to tell them that their benefits and the system that they are used to will stay the same. But it is for the rest of us, 54 and younger, that we are going to have to have some reforms to these systems in order to save them for the crowd that is 54 and younger. So you will see those details developed as we come forward with Mr. Ryan’s budget and his committee’s work. But again, it is important to note who is leading and who is not.
Q: Do you expect adjustments to both Social Security and Medicare?
Mr. Cantor: I think you are going to see some very bold reforms included. I am hopeful that we can get some cooperation from Harry Reid and the President, because these are programs that touch the lives of every American and we don’t want, nor can we, make these changes by ourselves. We want to work with the Democrats and the President in making changes to save these programs. But we can’t do it alone. You saw what happened the last time a major entitlement program was put on the books or reformed when one party did it. You have got the fiscal disaster that is ObamaCare.
If Republicans are really going to do both big discretionary cuts and entitlement reform — bold indeed.
Dan, you may want to highlight the part about benefits for people over 55 being protected. Highlight, italicize, capitalize and color. The understanding of that aspect of the reform among people in that age group is absolutely indispensable for this thing to have any success. (I know that isn't the principal burden of this post or todays back and forth but it is crucial to the debate).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wish our leaders (on both sides) and our commentators (including virtually everyone at NRO) would stop pretending that discretionary spending is anything more than a sideshow in addressing the budget deficit. There are only two things that matter: entitlements and taxes.
The fundamental political problem we have is that both sides of politics have essentially been lying, in that they encourage the fantasy that we can retain current entitlement levels AND not raise taxes, and yet balance the budget through "spending cuts" in the 12.3% of the budget that remains after you remove entitlements, defense, interest payments and so on.
The result is that most Americans are in the thrall of an arithmetic fantasy. And the result is that the GOP is scared to challenge the fantasy by proposing entitlement cuts, because the Dems will demonize them, and the Dems are scared to propose tax increases, because the GOP will demonize them.
And at the end of the day, no-one has the guts to ask the American people which they would actually prefer: tax increases, entitlement cuts, or some combination of both.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTheirs not to reason why,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTheirs but to do and die.
Republicans CAN do it alone, if necessary. There is no moral equivalence between the democrats' Obamacare and the conservatives' cuts-to-save-the-US-from-economic-collapse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans in the House cannot "do" entitlement reform. "Doing" entitlement reform requires that you have the House and a super-majority in the Senate. The House Republicans can talk all they like about entitlement reform. They may even pass some bill(s) about it in the House. But they are not going to "do" anything in the sense of altering US law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's my idea on a first step toward Reforming Social Security that I believe Congress should follow.
It has a great political side benefit of taking away (or at least reducing) the Social Security scare tactic from those who think we should do nothing.
I believe it is simple, effective, and who could vote against this bill-- Democrat or Republican?
You should present this as “This is the first step in a comprehensive review of Social Security. We wanted to guarantee that reform will NOT hurt people already on the current system, or those who are close to being eligible with no time for other programs. These citizens will be GUARANTEED their benefits for life..." Here's a Brief Description of the bill:
Bill to Guarantee Social Security for
Anyone Who Currently Receives Social Security
or is within X Years of Eligibility
With Guaranteed Benefits As Currently Defined
The purposes of this bill are:
1) This will guarantee current and "almost" retirees their benefits for life. It clearly acknowledges that the US government has an obligation to provide current and almost retirees with the benefits that have been “promised”. We are simply guaranteeing that we will make good on that obligation. Since Republicans have no intention of ever taking these benefits anyway, why not get the political benefit of making it official goverment law?
2) This will open the Social Security reform debate as Step One. It allows you to open the needed dialog on Social Security Reform for younger and middle-aged people (who want to discuss the issue), without the usual charges that the Republicans are trying to "starve old people, widows and orphans".
3) This will simplifiy needed Social Security reform by removing worry of seniors. By taking the Seniors (and the Dem scare politics aimed at them) out of the Social Security debate in large part. In fact, once their Social Security is "Guaranteed", then seniors can actually think rationally about the welfare of their children and grandchildren's retirement issues without worrying about their own.
4) Politically and very importantly- passage would immediately take this scare-tactic away from Democratic campaigns. They can no longer scare old people every election that a vote for GOP threatens to take away their monthly check. THEIR CHECKS ARE GUARANTEED FOR LIFE. You should get a much higher percentage of the senior vote without this "hot-button" always being used to scare them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI cannot stomach this notion that younger Americans alone must sacrifice to protect the status quo for Baby Boomers. This generation has repeatedly refused to sacrifice or even plan rationally for the future. They willfully kept their heads in the sand, trusting that their kids and grandkids would eventually have to clean up the mess--even if we have to tax ourselves to death to do it. Yet our leaders argue that any changes should only impact those of us 54 and younger. How convenient for the Boomers...
The same principle applies to these unaffordable pensions promised to state/municipal union workers over the past 30 years. These promises were completely unaffordable and lavish. Yet the solutions I hear focus solely on fixing the problems prospectively, instead of reducing benefits. Why should the beneficiaries of these lavish benefits not feel SOME of the pain of these mistakes?
As a younger American, I am appalled by the generational theft that has been perpetrated. But I'm even more appalled that our leaders believe the costs of these crimes should be born solely by the victims, instead of the thieves themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoing entitlement reform without significant support from the other party means proposing cuts in handouts to millions of people. The proposed cuts will not happen. Most of those millions will then vote for the other party. All pain and no gain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, maybe I'm naive, but I find this very encouraging. If the GOP puts forth a serious package -- i.e. some of what you want, some of what I want -- I think Obama might actually sign it. Every serious person in D.C., both Republican and Democrat, knows that the impending entitlement crunch is the most perilous issue that has faced this country in a long time. Given Obama's desire to be a "transformative president," I think he'd actually be an honest partner. One caveat: since demagoguing this issue is easier than shooting fish in a barrel, both parties will have to exercise extreme discipline over their members.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell since nothing will happen this isn't really relevant anyway.
Once the pain really hits in 15 years or so, we can stick it to the baby boomers when their parents are all firmly in their graves(not voting) and their grandchildren are 18+. Russia provides a good example of what to do with pensions(freeze them and let inflation completely rob them of value).
It is high time we had some demagoguery going in the other direction.
It's really nice that FDR promised that I would pay for all of your retirements. I'm pretty sure you can't promise anything when you aren't alive. While there may be some point of contention about whether life begins at birth or conception, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks it starts 40 years before conception.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReading about this issue is fairly depressing.
The politics are depressing because the GOP seems ready to run with entitlement reform even though they can't do a blessed thing about it without the acquiescence of the guy in the Oval Office. That guy, should he decide on some sort of compromise, will get full credit for it. If he should decide to demagogue the issue instead, he'll get full credit for "protecting seniors' future" or something along those lines.
The GOP only has the House and this president does not have the survival ethics of Clinton. Obama is Carter, with the same moral certitude (or rectitude, if you prefer) regarding domestic issues. Anyone who thinks Obama will moderate on domestic issues hasn't been paying enough attention the past two years. Yes, he compromised on the tax cuts, but that was maintaining the status quo, not reforming the building blocks of the New Deal.
Obama's not going to moderate out of a need to be "transformational" either. He already thinks he's there. Obama is a person who often credits his accomplishments to the simple fact that he is where he is and who he is.
What's also depressing is to hear some conservatives talk about the inevitability of tax hikes, particularly in this economy. The problem is and always has been spending. Taxes are relative to the amount that you want to spend in government. If you believe taxes should be higher, then you are committed to a higher overall level of spending. Whether or not that money pays down the debt, the spending is going to be higher that it otherwise would be.
So, politically the GOP is about to enter the minefield of entitlements with no hope that any significant progress can be made (unlike discretionary spending where there are strong signs on boths sides of the aisle that a deal can be done, Obama's budget proposal notwithstanding). Oh, and we'll probably have to raise taxes significantly because there's no way we'll ever get spending down enough.
If we keep talking like this, I'm going to have to start preparing myself for four more years of unsustainable spending and the economic meltdown to come.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse