JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 16, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
National Review editor Rich Lowry does not share the prevailing bravado on the right about cutting Medicare and Social Security:
House Republicans are all-in entitlements, as Bob Costa and Andrew Stiles detailed in their piece yesterday. This is principled and brave (just like the intellectual godfather of this effort, Paul Ryan). We’ll have to see how it plays politically. The public opposes cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and most Republicans did nothing to signal on the campaign trail that they’d do anything to touch them — in fact, most of them ran against Obama’s Medicare cuts.
He's probably correct about this. Here, then, is his proposed solution:
The best course would probably be to put off Social Security for now (doesn’t get you much over the next 10 years, and is absolutely radioactive unless Republicans get bi-partisan cover); get a start on Medicare reforms (by repealing Obama’s cuts and then getting no more than the same dollar amount in more market-oriented ways — defusing the charge that they are “gutting” Medicare); and to be bold on Medicaid (a big contributor to the fiscal mess in the states and an issue where they can get support from governors).
I think Republicans will end up following this advice, so it's worth unpacking what Lowry means. Putting off Social Security is straightforward. On Medicare, Lowry proposes repealing Obama's Medicare cuts. Then he says to match those with different cuts, but in a more "market-oriented" fashion. I'm not sure what he means here. Since "market-oriented" Medicare benefits consistently cost the government more money -- they funnel profits through a private middleman but deliver no efficiencies -- I'm guessing this means repeating the Bush-era policy of chanting "free market" over and over so as to dismiss the budgetary costs.
And then "be bold" on Medicaid means cutting health care benefits for poor people. Since they don't vote for the GOP anyway, it's not exactly bold. But it would allow Republicans to say they attacked "entitlements." Yup, cut the cheap program for the poor, expand the popular program for the middle-class, wave it away with some privatization voodoo rhetoric -- I think that's the ticket.
6 comments
"...put off Social Security for now..." Translation: we desperately need the elderly vote come 2012. No pissing off granny until we get that socialist foreigner out of our white house.
- Tristan
February 16, 2011 at 4:40pm
Reagan started the deficit bubble with the idea that low taxes are the way to go regardless of the consequences. When you abandon fiscal prudence you get unmoored budgeting. I don't see getting out of this without a heavy dose of common sense.
- Nusholtz
February 16, 2011 at 5:09pm
Paul Ryan is Ronald Reagan redux. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on making big, across-the-board cuts in the budget, but once in office, he started hacking away at the small programs, ones that benefited mostly the poor.
- liberalref
February 16, 2011 at 5:34pm
Well, it also plays into the Generation Greed (Bernie Madoff generation) narrative: Poor black and Mexican people are rolling around in piles of their hard earned tax money. Get you no good hands off my Medicare and Social Security until you go after those lazy bums!!!
- MikeB.
February 16, 2011 at 6:53pm
I'm concerned that the new Republican mantra is becoming "We're going to be BRAVE! We're going to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid! We know, that's the third rail, but we'll be brave and TOUCH IT!" If they want to be "brave" and "do the right thing", then they should balance all this extra spending they've done since 2000 by talking about TAXES, not victimizing the poor and retired. Did the over-50 crowd who voted IN these idiots not REALIZE they were cutting their own throats? I know the Republicans didn't SAY they'd cut Social Security during the election, but they never do SAY it until AFTER they're in office. Over-50's should remember this by now.
- AllanL5
February 16, 2011 at 8:12pm
Allan, The trick is this: Don't worry Generation Greed that voted for these people will be protected as Matt Yglesis explains: "...Thus when you look at Jeb Hensarling’s proposal for drastic cuts in Social Security benefits or Paul Ryan’s plan to pair drastic Social Security cuts with drastic Medicare cuts you’ll see that there’s a trick—none of it applies to anyone who’s 55 or older today. The basic idea is to take the GOP old white people base and insulate them from cuts. The under 55 crowd will still have to pay the taxes to finance their benefits, but we ourselves won’t get the benefits. As you’ll recall from the health reform debate, somewhat paradoxically it’s the current beneficiaries of single-payer government-provided health insurance who evince the most opposition to universal health care. Basically, they’ve got theirs and don’t care about extending the benefits of universal health care to younger people. Ryan and Hensarling are proposing to institutionalize this version of the intergenerational bargain—culturally conservative oldsters still get paid, but the welfare state they enjoy and support will be phased out for Generations X and Y."
- MikeB.
February 16, 2011 at 8:22pm