House Republican leaders held a member conference call Tuesday afternoon to assess and answer questions about the ongoing effort to sell Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget resolution — adopted by the House on April 15 — to their respective constituencies. Lawmakers on the call, who said the vast majority of the budget-related questions (they also discussed the debt ceiling) were about Medicare reform — gave mixed reviews regarding how the debate is shaping up. “I think there’s been a real positive reaction to the budget,” freshman Rep. Bill Huizenga (R., Mich.) tells NRO. “Of course, when people hear all of that old Washington rhetoric that’s mean to scare people, there’s a certain element who buy into it.”
And despite several reports of some unruly town hall meetings (See: here, here and here), and a few eye-opening polls, there seems to be a general sense of “Where’s the outrage?” — especially when the events of the past week are compared to the town hall frenzy that erupted during the height of the debate over health care reform.
For some, it’s simply a matter of combating the Democratic spin and scare tactics that Republicans have long been expecting. “I’ve had some of my constituents tell me: “I’m 60-70 years old, what am I going to do without Medicare?” Huizenga says. “And they’re relieved when I tell them the changes in the budget don’t affect them, but that’s just one example of a basic misconception out there that we need to correct.” The Medicare reforms included in Ryan’s budget would not apply to anyone over the age of 55, a fact that Democrats conveniently omit in their attacks.
Several House Republicans, however, tell NRO on background that some members feel like they were “thrown to the wolves” without sufficient preparation for the questions they’ve been facing back in their districts. The budget was adopted on a Friday afternoon before a two-week recess, they point out, and members were handed a sheet of talking points to take with them before they went home. “There’s only one Paul Ryan,” one says. “And it’s not that the budget isn’t a great plan, but there’s just so much in there that a lot of us haven’t been able to digest to the point where we can defend it as eloquently as he does.”
But despite the “politically volatile” nature of the some of the reforms Republicans have chosen to adopt, there are a growing number of indications that they ought to be reasonably confident in their ability to win the messaging war. A USA TODAY/Gallup poll released Tuesday found that 48 percent of Americans want to solve the deficit problem either entirely or mostly with spending cuts (the Republican plan), compared to 11 percent who prefer mostly tax increases (the Obama “plan”).
Greg Sargent looks at some of the additional findings in that same poll in an attempt to answer a questions that apparently been nagging liberals: Why do some Democrats, specifically President Obama, insist on acknowledging reality by even suggesting that entitlement reform is essential to bringing the deficit under control?
As it turns out, it could be because voters are actually far more intelligent (and less susceptible to partisan demagoguery) than most Democrats had hoped. The poll asks:
How long do you think it will be until the costs of the Medicare and Social Security programs create a crisis for the federal government — are they already creating a crisis, will they create a crisis within the next 10 years, within 10 to 20 years, in more than 20 years, or not for the foreseeable future?
And here’s how respondents answered:
-
Already creating a crisis: 34 percent
-
Within the next 10 years: 33 percent
-
Within 10 to 20 years: 19 percent
-
Within more than 20 years: 4 percent
-
Not for the foreseeable future: 7 percent
So, a full two-thirds of Americans (accurately) believe that entitlement spending at current levels will create a crisis for the federal government within the next decade, while only 7 percent agree with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Not a bad starting point.
How glib do you have to be to tell existing and nearby retirees that their plans won't change?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRyan's plan might have sounded good to me twenty years ago. However, my husband and many other older folks will not find an insurer - so does Ryan's plan provide for giving us the money and we pay the overage?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't believe representatives are complaining that they weren't properly briefed on how to sell the plan.
Um, folks, just what have you been doing for the past two years? Been paying attention at all?
I'm a business owner who works 80 hours a week and I still found time to educate myself on Ryan's "premium support" model. Its not rocket surgery, after all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@FraninAtlanta
If you are 55 or older nothing changes for you, the plan only begins to change for those who are 54 and younger at the moment, as in right now.
The problem has become so obvious it is common sense if you know how to add and subtract. It has only been building decade after decade to the degree the next President will be the last where any doubt exists as to the obviousness of the budget problem to the most ardent bias of citizen. Eventually that train coming down the tracks hits the most citizen in denial if he stands in front of it too long. By 2016 even the last holdout of liberal faithful will have been run over with reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoy it sure looks like any town halls are going to be rough. As a Move On member I have lots of good questions for my local GOP rep...I can't wait for that....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans really only have to use a four-word answer to critics of Medicare Reform: “Would you prefer bankruptcy?”
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is not that the Democrats did not recognize the entitlement programs will be broke soon. Their solution, however, is to tax the producers more in general and cut what they can get from those programs by mean testing and claw back. Never mind they have already paid the most in income tax and FICA, and getting the least back. They are not supportive of general sacrifices, especially not when they themselves are the one who have to make them. At same point the producers will be tired of working for the takers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFran,
Only time will tell but I would expect that the market will find a supplier. There weren't supplemental Medicare options until it was needed either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Many representatives feel like they were thrown to the wolves."
Oh. Please. What a bunch of whiners! You passed the budget. Didn't you read it?
Ryan made his proposal last month...none of these well paid representatives, or their staff, could afford the time to familiarize themselves with the budget? It was even reported on NRO that Ryan was giving background classes on the problems his budget tried to solve.
I see this behavior all the time at my work. People refuse to engage on a project, despite leaders pushing constant information to them...and when it comes time for them to act, they wail that they didn't get enough information. This is the number one priority for the GOP and these people aren't prepared? Crikey, who is running this outfit?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember, the current Congress can not bind a future Congress. So if these cuts in medicare are so politically toxic that we can't do them now or in the near future, but can only promise to do them in 10 years, do we really think the Congress/voters 10 years from now will be so different from us that they will resist the same pressure to put them off another 10 years?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is common to hear republicans complain about ramming bills through without anyone reading them. It is somewhat unusual to hear them complain about themselves doing it to each other. The Ryan bill has been around for some time and many republicans have talked about it as the great solution without actually understanding the ramifications.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt does terminate Medicare for those under 55. There is no talking point that changes that. It gives vouchers that are not designed to keep up with medical costs. It does nothing to ameliorate rising costs. And the whole plan adds to the deficit. It was funny when the tea party shouted down politicians about the health care debate. Get used to hearing it from the other side.
Fran, actually Medicare still will exist and you will be able to get coverage - no one will be denied. It is just that the financing is going to change, the richer amongst us will pay more for coverage, and over time everyone will pay more as the increases in financial support from the federal govt will be capped. Hopefully, a full array of plan coverages will be available to meet whatever coverage you feel is best for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the same USA Today poll, 72% said they were concerned that the Ryan plan would balance the budget on the backs of the poor and further enrich the wealthy. This is the elephant in the room for anyone speaking to constitutents. This number suggests strongly that the responsible course is a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It does terminate Medicare for those under 55. There is no talking point that changes that. It gives vouchers that are not designed to keep up with medical costs."
Of course. That's the point. The costs will fall on people with a fixed income at a time when they can least afford it.
And - to make it worse - people tend to get sicker as they get older, not healthier. So the plan is designed to shift the cost of that extended life to the user - also at a time when they can least afford it.
All of this in conjunction with a tax cut. (I have yet to see Ryan explain that one.)
This doesn't make sense. The reason many representatives feel like they were thrown to the wolves is because they were. You can't logically explain this elimination of medicare and make it sound right.
Now this person means well:
"Fran, actually Medicare still will exist and you will be able to get coverage - no one will be denied. It is just that the financing is going to change, the richer amongst us will pay more for coverage, and over time everyone will pay more as the increases in financial support from the federal govt will be capped. Hopefully, a full array of plan coverages will be available to meet whatever coverage you feel is best for you."
Do you notice how casually she mentions that "just the financing is going to change?" and that the "richer amongst us will pay more as the increases in financial support from the federal govt will be "capped?"" This is laughable. The next sentence then starts with "hopefully."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseREAD BETWEEN THE LINES. What happens to those who are NOT RICHER when the financial support is CAPPED?
What happens when anything is capped? It stops working. It dies. (Sort of like an oil well.)
Are we so slow that we allow someone to "cap" us? And we vote for it?
The reason there's none of the outrage we saw last year is most people are smarter than politicians and pundits give them credit for:
They know Ryan's plan is DOA in the Senate and, without a single Republican presidential hopeful willing to embrace it, it would seem to be DOA even as a campaign issue.
It remains great fodder for pundits and has certainly raised Ryan's political stock, but outside the beltway, I think most people see it as a "someone had to do it" first draft that will ultimately morph into something more palatable to both sides.
So perhaps constituents just have better things to focus their outrage on right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo Vrob25: Let's assume that every dire prediction you make will come true. We can even throw in a few dire predictions that you haven't made, just to keep things even. When do we start to realize that these consequences are not avoidable because there just isn't enough money. No matter how dire the consequences, we live in a real world with real limits.
To anyone who thinks tax increases are a part of the solution, you must live in a world where yesterday never happened and tomorrow never comes. Look at the past. It has never mattered how much you raise taxes, Washington spends it all and then some. The ultimate problem is too much spending, not too little taxing. Unless spending is seriously curtailed, tax increases tomorrow, just like every tax increase yesterday, only postpones the hard decisions and makes them harder.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is depressing to read that some Republican congressmen are unhappy that they were "thrown to the wolves." Hey guys, ever heard of "read the bill?" Unbelievable that they are so clueless as to go to a townhall meeting without being prepared. Looks like we have to do some pruning next year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse