House Republicans are serious about reforming entitlement programs to rein in the federal deficit. In the Senate, a bipartisan working group led by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) and Mark Warner (D., Va.) hopes to do the same by looking at all aspects of the federal budget, building on the recommendations put forward by President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission. The commission’s co-chairs — former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former senator Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.) — are back in the political scene and insist that “everything should be on the table,” especially entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.
Even Social Security. Not to “cut” or “gut” or “slash” the program, but simply to ensure its solvency for future generations. Simpson explains (as only he can): “The word is ‘solvency.’ It doesn’t have anything to do with cutting out old ladies or old men, torturing children or throwing bed pans out of hospitals. It has to do with making a public system that people are truly dependent on and making it solvent so it doesn’t go broke.” And doing so would require relatively basic reforms such as raising the retirement age, means testing, adjusting the growth rate of benefits, etc.
Some Democrats get it. Bowles says Social Security should “absolutely, unequivocally” be reformed now, or else future benefits will truly be slashed (not that far) down the road. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, explains: “[F]or people who are going to retire after the year 2037, if we did nothing at all people would see a 25 percent drop in their benefits, which is why it is important to come together on a bipartisan basis to put the Social Security program on fiscally sustainable footing.” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) even said House Republicans deserve “credit” for committing to tackle entitlements — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — in their 2012 budget.
Okay, but where does Senate Democratic leadership stand? Well, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) says he’s willing to discuss changes to Social Security “two decades from now.” And it gets worse. While most politicians and pundits are lamenting poll results that reveal how poorly-informed Americans are about the federal debt crisis and the substantial budget reforms — to entitlements and elsewhere — that will be required to bring spending under control, a Reid spokesman is gloating over the same results: “Americans reject GOP plan, stand with [Harry Reid]: Don’t Cut Social Security, Medicare!”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has been pressuring Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), who served on the deficit commission and is also a member of the “Gang of Six” senators working toward a bipartisan solution, to exclude Social Security from negotiations. A group of liberal Democratic senators has even proposed legislation that would require a two-thirds vote on any major changes to the program. As always, the AARP, perhaps the most powerful interest group in the country (approx. 40 million members) is aggressively lobbying both parties not to touch either Social Security or Medicare.
What about President Obama? #more#You’d hardly know that it was he who created the Bowles-Simpson commission — by executive order — given the way he has all but ignored its final report, other than to say ‘I don’t agree with all of it’ and ‘we should probably talk about it sometime.’
In his State of the Union address, Obama devoted some 70 paragraphs to “investment” and “winning the future” before even mentioning the commission’s work, however briefly. “I don’t agree with all their proposals,” he said. “But they made important progress.” He acknowledged that Medicare and Medicaid costs are “the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit,” but said his health-care law had already done a great deal to reduce those costs.
On Social Security, he called for “a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations,” followed by a string of caveats: “We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”
Kind of like Obama’s strategy on Libya: ‘Let’s remove Qaddafi, but without having to make any difficult choices along the way.’ Technically, he hasn’t taken Social Security off the table, but he certainly won’t hesitate to accuse Republicans of doing all of the above as soon as they propose reforms to the program.
Tellingly, after those few short paragraphs in the SOTU speech, Obama moved on to more important issues, like the need to raise taxes, which is about the only thing Democrats can agree on these days.
When it comes to entitlement — as has all too often turned out to be the case — President Obama’s actions fall far short of candidate Obama’s words:
Obama: “We’re going to have to take on entitlements, and I think we’ve got to do it quickly. . . . I’d like to do it in my first term as president.”
Unless, of course, it would jeopardize his chance at a second term, which is clearly what his political advisers have decided — economic crisis be damned, it’s worth putting it off a little while longer so that Obama can demonize any and all Republican reform efforts on his way to reelection in 2012.
Here’s a interesting clip of Obama speaking at the House GOP retreat in Baltimore last year, discussing Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap,” which he called “an entirely legitimate proposal” to reign in entitlement costs. He says we can’t have a serious discussion about entitlement reform until both parties stop playing politics on the issue:
Obama: “There is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that’s probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul’s plan. And I raise that, not because we shouldn’t have a serious discussion about it; I raise that because we’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as ‘Well, you know, that’s the other party being irresponsible . . . the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens.’
“That’s why I say: If we’re going to frame these in the way that allow us to solve them, then we can’t start off by figuring out a) who is to blame; b) how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately that’s how our politics works right now. . . . And so the question is, at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious conversation about Social Security or serious conversation about budget and debt where aren’t simply trying to position ourselves politically?”
Great question, Mr. President.
But we already know your answer, don’t we . . .
UPDATE: Forget to mention this little gem of an op-ed from September 2007. Obama writes:
[T]he fact is, we will not be able to solve this problem and protect Social Security for good until we stop treating it like a political wedge issue and instead unite Republicans and Democrats behind a sensible solution. In 1983, there were problems with Social Security, and President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neil worked together to forge an effective bipartisan compromise. That sense of civility and shared purpose is notably absent in Washington today.
We need a President who can challenge conventional thinking in Washington, fight for the people’s interests, and bring Americans together to meet the challenges of our time. That is exactly the sort of leadership I intend to offer.
Never too late to start.