House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) conceded on Thursday that the Republican Medicare plan played a “small part” in the GOP’s surprising defeat in the NY-26 special election earlier this week.
“Special elections are just that — special,” he told reporters at a press conference to unveil a GOP jobs plan, noting the presence of self-funded “Tea Party” candidate Jack Davis as a complicating factor in the race, but not as an excuse for the party’s poor performance in a deep-red district. “I could be somewhat critical of how the campaign was run, but the fact is we didn’t win,” Boehner added. “And the small part of the reason we didn’t win clearly had to do with Medicare.”
But the speaker did not shy away from the GOP plan, offering a vigorous deference, citing “three facts about Medicare.”
“Fact: The only plan out there to preserve and protect Medicare for current and future retirees is the plan that we’ve put forth,” he said. “Fact Number Two: The only people in Washington, D.C., who have voted to cut Medicare have been the Democrats when they voted to cut $500 billion in Medicare during Obamacare. The Third Fact: The Democrats plan is to do nothing, and the trustees of Medicare have made clear that doing nothing means that the plan will go bankrupt and seniors’ benefits will be cut.”
“We have outlined a plan, frankly, that we believe in,” Boehner added. “The Democrats have no plan, which is going to lead to bankruptcy and cuts to seniors’ benefits. It’s about time they were honest with the American people.”
Rep. Boehner is right. If Paul Ryan's Medicare plan had played a major role in the election, Hochul would have won by a much wider margin. And it's very likely that the election would have gone Corwin's way if there hadn't been a faux Tea Party candidate in the race to pull votes away from her.
So desperate are Democrats to make this election about Medicare that one blogger claimed Davis' presence in the race helped Corwin and suggested Hochul would have won much bigger if he hadn't been in the race. Now that's some serious spinning!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem is, Boehner should not say keeping the status quo will result in "senior's benefits being cut" -- he should say it will result is the complete collapse of Medicare under its own weight. We are not talking about cuts -- we are talking about complete loss. That needs to be the sense of urgency with which the GOP addresses this topic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had almost forgotten that Republicans were against the $500bn in Medicare cuts proposed by the Democrats. Pretty sad that Boehner used Mediscare tactics himself just a few months ago, and is now all the Republicans are crying foul when the Democrats do it. I'd take Republicans a lot more seriously on entitlement reform if they were actually a little consistent. As it stands, the only thing they're consistent on is tax cuts for the rich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the case of PPACA, it wasn't a scare tactic - the legislation DOES cut medicare for existing beneficiaries by $500b. The Ryan Plan doesn't touch current beneficiaries. Thats why the Democratic position in NY-26 is so hypocritical - because they did actually vote for a bill that cuts current beneficiaries and now they're accusing Republicans, whose bill doesn't touch beneficiaries of doing the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Affordable Care Act played a small part in the Republican takeover of the House" - Barack Obama
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll believe actual polling data re what factored into the NY-26 loss, not speculation like this.
Jenna, do you have anything of substance to back up your statement that had medicare played more of a role the margin of D victory would have larger? Or is it more wishful thinking like Mr. Boehner's? As for the faux Tea Party candidate, the R party establishment made their pact with the devil and now get to live with the results.
Finally, re the Ryan plan, I've said before that the "premium support/voucher" plan isn't worth much if private insurers don't want to insure seniors with pre-existing conditions. This is, as I understand it, one of the primary reasons that Medicare was enacted in the first place--the private markets weren't providing coverage that was deemed, from a public policy perspective, necessary.
The Rs have presented the Ryan plan as the only real option to have some type of coverage for seniors, and that option means cutting costs alone with no consideration of tax increases. You can pretend this is the only option but people are smarter than that. Mr. Ryan can complain that raising the problems with his plan is "demagoguery," but to my knowledge he hasn't addressed the issues raised in such demagoguery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe can comment on comments now? Cool!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe issue is how close any final plan comes to embracing the free market and individual choice as much as possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRyan has put a line in the sand... his calculations may or may not have a few rosy coefficients in them.
But the target of a fixed proportion of GDP, and the ethos of giving individuals maximal responsibility to make choices for themselves as an enforcer in the marketplace are extemely defensible.
How many people work for the CBO and the OMB and how many people put together the Ryan Roadmap?
To imply the only choice is Ryan's plan or doing nothing is a false choice. There's a huge band of possbilities in the middle and all its takes is a willingness on both sides to do the work of negotiating.
I think the public would respond positively and accept something that's negotiated out of true fairness instead of Ryan's 'punish this bunch, reward this bunch' tact.
That's what has people angry: Who died and annointed Ryan Crown Prince of Entitlements and where do Republicans get off saying it's our way or nothing, as if all the money in the pot comes from them?
If the House were not so self-rightous and inflexible they would have presented Ryan's plan as a base for negotiation, which would be far easier to defend right now.
I predict they'll eventually be forced to take that position as the wreckage accumulates, but by then it will be too late to salvage '12.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what is the other reasonable plan besides the Ryan Plan? The Democrats have, to date, proposed nothing. There is no Democratic budget, there is no Dem plan.
What is Ryan supposed to do - keep negotiating with himself and watering down his proposal until the Democrats decide it has come close enough to doing nothing that they can support it?
Again, the current system collapses in a few years. It is demographically untenable. What is the reasonable alternative to the Ryan plan and what politician is pushing it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Mr. Ryan can complain that raising the problems with his plan is "demagoguery," but to my knowledge he hasn't addressed the issues raised in such demagoguery."
Ryan is no less of a demagogue than the Democrats. He refuses to acknowledge the reality of the voucher system i.e. the fact that a vast majority of people won't be able to afford many, most or any of the services they get for "free" now.
Ryan made an infomercial that supposedly explains his plan. And guess what? He devoted around 15 seconds to his own plan and, again, pretended there will be no reduction of services. The rest was devoted to the general explanation of the problem and to the Obamacare solution. This was done well. But he refuses to acknowledge the implications of his own plan.
We are constantly told that Ryan is brave. But he is not brave at all. Chris Christie (for example) is brave but Ryan isn't. His general approach is to claim that his plan is pretty much painless. He wants to sell his plan as something it is not because he is afraid to state the plain consequences of it that everyone can see.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHouse Speaker Boehner says it is time for politicians to be honest with the American people. But with respect to "Fact Number Two" he fails to mention that the Ryan plan, which all but 4 House Republicans voted for, keeps those very same cuts to Medicare Advantage. So, it seems to me that "Fact Number Two" is at least misleading if not untrue. Clearly Republicans had a chance to reverse those cuts in their own plan, but chose to not only not reverse them but to go much further.
I don't know. I think there is something disconcerting for someone to use misleading rhetoric in the same speech in which they emphasize honesty. An honest statement would be that Democrats made some cuts to Medicare Advantage and we not only want to keep those cuts, but expand upon them.
Why do the American people accept this from politicians of either party? I don't mean this as a partisan statement. I think our political debates would be infinitely improved if our politicians held themselves to higher standards of honesty.
I also think that perfectly good people probably end up going into politics and they become like this because "everyone does it" and that is "how politics is played." So, I am not necessarily directing this criticism just at politicians, but also perhaps at voters for tolerating this sort of thing from politicians.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin Moriarty: Yes, I have something of substance to back up my statement. My intellect and common sense, although I'm fairly certain that isn't substantive enough for someone such as yourself. Your comment about the faux Tea Party candidate is absurd. The guy ran for the same office two or three times previously as a Democrat, so why are Republicans to blame for his dishonesty and inattentive voters? Since it is your position that reaching out to voters who don't toe the party line is making a pact with the devil, I assume you're not a fan of the Democrats' "big tent" concept.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna: Your "common sense" is fine but it isn't a substitute for actual polling data. Re your comments on the tea party candidate, I didn't take any posiiton on this, so I don't know what you're talking about. The thrust of my comments is that pretending that the Ryan plan is the only viable means to address Medicare funding doesn't change the fact that there are other alternatives. The fact that the Democrats may not have presented an alternative (actually they have by holding onto the possibility of taxes along with spending cuts), but that doesn't mean alternatives don't exist.
It would be a lot easier conversing with you if you addressed what I say rather than introduce red herrings to diminish my opinions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChris Lee played the largest part, give him credit for causing an election we lost.
No election, no loss of a congressional seat.
Thanks a pantload, Chris.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr Boehner,
It may have been a small swing percentage, but I think if you scrutinize the numbers a little more closely, it was more than enough to turn a red seat blue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse