-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Throughout the health care debate, I argued that it was a huge mistake for Republicans to focus on attacking the Medicare cuts in the Democrats’ health care legislation, because it reinforces the third-rail status of the program that will need to be seriously reformed to avert the impending fiscal collapse of the United States. Now, we’re starting to see GOP candidates dig themselves in even further, by continuing to attack the Medicare cuts.
Earlier this morning, I received a press release from Chris Cox, a Republican seeking to replace Tim Bishop in New York’s 1st Congressional district. The district went for Obama by just 3 points in 2008, and is seen as competitive this time around, with Bishop’s vote for the unpopular health care bill putting him in danger of losing his seat. It’s one thing to make the much narrower argument that we’re cutting Medicare to finance a new entitlement program, but Cox goes far beyond that.
His press release began:
Supporting a bill that cuts nearly $500 billion in Medicare funding that seniors across the country depend on, Tim Bishop’s vote on government-run health care has placed thousands of New York’s seniors in a serious situation as they struggle to afford health care.
The release also reads, in bold letters, “Tim Bishop’s vote for government-run health care leads to cuts in Medicare for 800,000 New York seniors.”
The intellectual incoherence in this statement is amazing. It attacks Bishop for voting for government-run health care while arguing that the mother of all government-run health care programs cannot be touched.
The release continues with a statement from Cox in which he engages in the type of demagoguery that is typically associated with Democrats:
“Many of our grandparents, mothers and fathers depend on Medicare to receive necessary health care, but with the reckless health care bill that Tim Bishop helped pass, their benefits have been put in danger. At a time when many of our seniors have seen their retirement savings vanish during our difficult economy, additional taxes and cuts to their health care benefits is just not something seniors can afford. To cut $500 billion in funding for our nation’s most vulnerable citizens is an outrage and something that I will fight to repeal if I am given the privilege to represent Long Islanders in Congress.”
Should Republicans retake the majority with new representatives like Cox, we’ll never be in a position to repeal Obamacare because Republicans won’t be able to make a credible philosophical argument against government-run health care. And in the long-run, having already promoted themselves as defenders of Medicare, they’ll never be in a position to vote for true entitlement reform along the lines of what’s been proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan.
Cox’s defense of the sanctity of Medicare should be viewed as nothing less than a direct assault on younger generations who will be forced to grapple with the burden of unsustainable growth in entitlements. If he were really concerned about protecting “our nation’s most vulnerable citizens,” he may want to think about the grandchildren for a change, instead of trying to score short-term political points using liberal rhetoric.
Becky| 4.2.10 @ 11:07AM
That's always bothered me too about Republicans. Big over indebted programs may have been started by liberals, but they only live because Republicans give them life.
It is cruel to cut off the elderly now, I agree, which goes to show that we need to address those not yet getting benefits, and how to bring that in line with future resources.
My dad talked like Ronald Reagan and voted for every democrat because he feared the Republicans would cut his SS. We need to start to differentiate between those receiving and those who are coming up. Both sides agree either taxes will be raised, or benefits cut, or both. The argument will be who has the best recipe and can sell it.
Eisenhower| 4.2.10 @ 1:42PM
It kind of gives new meaning to that old G.K. Chesteron quote: “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” And sadly it appears that unless we get rid of men like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner this will continue to occur.
Siegfried X| 4.3.10 @ 8:05PM
"My dad talked like Ronald Reagan and voted for every democrat because he feared the Republicans would cut his SS. "
Yes, the Democrats figure that everyone who receives a government check will vote for them. That's why their goal is to get a majority of the population on some sort of welfare, insuring a permanent Democratic majority.
Phil| 4.2.10 @ 11:53AM
I actually think Cox is on the money here...on his webpage www.chriscoxforcongress.com he talks about ending waste in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. But I think the issue here is taking away critical benefits during a serious economic down turn. Others may see it differently.
martin j smith| 4.2.10 @ 1:23PM
The creation of Medicare as is with social security were created on a bipartisan basis and with popular ( i.e. voter support). So when it is pointed out that among other things Seniors will be victims of BHO's health care reform ( so called ) it is not in appropriate. But when a bill called Health Care Reform which most people are agsinst and few people know a lot about what is it but oit comes out that one way of financing it is by cutting one groups benefot--for me this is a problem both medically and politicly. BHO seems to have a tendency of pitting groups agains groups-old versus young, gays versus straight, black versus white,so called " middle class" versus the so called rich. This element in the Health Care legislation created without bi-partisan support, and against the will of the majority of voters is asn import ieice of information. Every bit of this legislation should be examined carefully and this information should be made available to the voters.
So, I do not agree with the notion that seniuors should not be informed. The other thing is that younger generations will burdened by greater and greater debt--so everyone is a loser.
This legislation war a fraud,poorly created, unafordable, and in my view totally politically motivated.
Cris Worth| 4.2.10 @ 3:00PM
I suspect liberal elements of the GOP led by Michael Steele will take advantage of what gains the GOP has in November solidify their control of the party and pave the way for our old buddy Mitt Romney. Competition is weak and there is no way the country club hierarchy is going to allow the nomination of a conservative in the Reagan mode. Steele and others will tout someone with economic and business experience – Romney’s trump card. The old Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party is alive and well and will stay vigilant to stamp out any conservative dark horse that may appear.
L A Stich| 4.2.10 @ 8:45PM
The stupidity of Mr Cox's campaign is ONE reason that there is a TEA Party.
Republicans, by and large, are merly shadows of Democrats. Tax, spend, tax, spend, protect-our-own-asses, tax, spend.
martin j smith| 4.3.10 @ 8:08AM
In the short term the goal is to topple the Democrats, in the longer term to work towards the electing the most politcally courageous,honest, and responsive to voters possible. Any kind of elitist of whatever strip should be OUT.
The Bushes,Clinton,Obama,Carter, among others are all elitist. Oh and did I forget John MacC ?
Oldefarte| 4.3.10 @ 3:48PM
Entitlements should not be REFORMED, they should be ELIMINATED. Social Security and Medicare could/should be maintained for certain age groups that have PAID FOR [by their payroll deductions] same, but eliminated for say, 20-30 year-olds. Medicaid should be seriously reduced or eliminated, since it is nothing but WELFARE that none of its recipients PAY FOR [the TAXPAYERS pay for it]. Indigent medical care could be more economically handled by a system of [staffed and funded] governmental hospitals. Entitlement elimination is needed to avoid this country's eventual bankruptcy from same!!!!!
Siegfried X| 4.3.10 @ 8:02PM
Real budget cuts don't sell. Libertarianism doesn't sell -- the Libertarians get less than 1% in every election.
Older Republicans have been there, and done that. Lots of Republicans fought for real budget cuts during the Reagan and Gingrich years. Voters don't want it.
"Everybody" says they want budget cuts, but as soon as one touches them or someone they see on TV, they scream "No! No! Not THOSE cuts".
That is why we have ended up with the demagoging about "earmarks". It lets politicians pretend to cut spending, by cutting a few pieces of pork totalling a millionth of one percent of the budget, while voting for the rest.
Michael| 4.3.10 @ 10:22PM
Changes are needed in the Medicare program but I think that you can make a pretty good argument that cutting the Medicare budget to fund yet another entitlement program is not a responsible course of action. Also, it's not just seniors who are hit by Medicare budget cuts. About 20% of those on Medicare are not seniors but folks otherwise eligible.