-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In the New York Times, Ramesh Ponnuru presents the argument that the GOP should hold off on attempts to reform entitlements:
Reforming [Medicare and Social Security] is vital to our nation’s long-term fiscal health - which is why Republicans should resist this advice and leave the issue alone. Reform is impossible this year or next unless President Obama takes the lead on it. What’s more, Republicans have no mandate for reform, and a failed attempt will only set back the cause.
…
Would-be reformers should draw two lessons from this history. The first is that reform can’t be sprung on the electorate. Reagan hadn’t campaigned on cutting Social Security in 1980, nor did the Gingrich Republicans promise to reduce the growth of Medicare.
Today is no different: while some Republican candidates in the last election spoke forthrightly about the need to rein in these programs — notably Representative [Paul] Ryan himself, but also new Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky — most of them didn’t.
…
The second lesson is that presidential support for reform is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for success. As John Boehner, the new speaker of the House, said himself on election night, governing from Capitol Hill doesn’t work — the president has to set the agenda.
Two counterargruments come to mind. The first is that even futile attempts to introduce legislation advance the cause of entitlement reform, both because doing so highlights the issues the country is facing for the public and because whoever first proposes reform sets the baseline expectations for what can be done.
The second is that Republicans did campaign on repealing Obamacare, in fact it was one of the central themes of the midterms. They are committed to trying to pass a repeal measure in the House. One could argue that repeal alone constitutes a reform of health care entitlements, but either way it only makes sense to develop and promote a replacement plan — passing repeal without submitting a alternative proposal would look destructive. It seems like in the next two years Republicans are going to have to try to reform at least Medicare whether they want to or not.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/14/is-repeal-reform
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric Cartman| 1.14.11 @ 9:52AM
Wasn't Ramesh Ponnuru giving the same advice to General Custer at Little Big Horn? The "Wait, we must convince Crazy Horse to lead the surrender process if anything is to move forward" approach to war fighting. Our friend Ramesh has to rethink this one.
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.14.11 @ 10:06AM
A bit off the subject but you are not going to believe this. The local mayor (D) is being recalled for his absolute abandonment of the fiscal constraint he campaigned on. His compliancy with the local public service unions is his most significant “turnaround” prompting the recall effort. The local news media (D), trooped out to the elections commission office (D) for the obligatory pre-special election interview and was confronted with a parking lot full of yellow buses and lines waiting to register and early vote. The buses were being “donated” by the “support the mayor” campaign and contained the “residents” of the local “homeless” shelters. Some had been promised jobs, virtually all had been “reembursed" (paid) five dollars to fill out the applications, and some were there for the joy ride. The “spin” on this from the Mayor’s Office, the media’s justification of this circus, and the denial from the Homeless shelters about compliancy (which has cost them most of their donor base) is both humorous and tragic.
The only thing missing are the temporary debt cards “stamped with the Union label” (I VOTED) and redeemable only at the local liquor store.
bluecollarbytes| 1.14.11 @ 10:13AM
In recent times when Republicans held the presidency and both houses, we were told it just wasn't enough to 'change things'.
It's true that major, needed -'reform' can't be forced on the citizens without the leadership, and prior educating as to the whys of the need.
If the Republican institutions start now to educate the public, perhaps we may see a change before dying.
Unless Republicans get as serious about leading with the same certainty as Democrats, I expect it will be more about arranging the lounge chairs.
biwah| 1.14.11 @ 10:23AM
Ponnuru's argument: because the GOP was too subdued/coy about entitlement reform, they should now be silent about it for at least one more election cycle. Really? We are now into the 2012 cycle, and he is basically saying sit this one out and limit the argument to tactical blame-shifting. The 2012 platform may have been light on specifics, but it was quite clear about taking leadership on reducing the size and cost of government. Nowhere (aside from defense) is the govt larger or more costly than on entitlements.
Or, "now that we have identified the truly critical economic issues of our time, we must steadfastly kick the can down the road...again." Is there not an obvious and tactically useful role for the GOP to make proposals and prod the administration? If they do, there is a new wind at their backs, including the deficit commission's surprisingly bipartisan report. Anything else sounds like a pretext for cowardice, in which case it will NEVER be the right time, and the U.S. will slide further into debtor-state status. Sure, Ponnuru is right that it can't happen without buy-in from both sides, but that's hardly an argument to pre-emptively give up.
Spoken as a mostly-liberal who would like to see the GOP emerge from its rhetorical swamp into a credible force for reform and debt control. Whoever can succeed on THAT basis, I will support them.
biwah| 1.14.11 @ 10:24AM
correction: "the 2010 platform may have been light on specifics, but..."
marin j smith| 1.14.11 @ 10:25AM
For me the viability of the Republican Party is a probationary situation. I am fully aware that forming a third party could end up giving the Democrat Party a permanent majority--and this could happen. But I think it worth doing two things now: One: Tea Party folks exercize their influence with Republicans by reminding them why the got elected or else !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Two get an idea of how the VOTERS would feel if the Republican Party failed and if they would be inclined to consider an alternative. Especially if the Republican party fails.
biwah| 1.14.11 @ 11:04AM
Marin, yes, but it's a two way street, and some of those TP voters might not be so crazy about cutting Medicare. To lower the threshhold for talking about this stuff, the GOP needs to start getting specific now. The TP can't allow the GOP to think that symbolic grandstanding (like health care "repeal") for the next 2 years is going to cut it...which means that they can't settle for symbolic measures and have to be willing to support at least the possibility of specific, difficult measures.
It did jump out that Ponnuru identifies medicaid cuts as safe ground, but not medicare/SS. All that says is that leaving the poor in the lurch is okay, but don't touch any benefits, even incrementally, for the retired (a big chunk of the TP base). I know the TP is defined by its principles, and simply guarding your own benefits while going after someone else is just political self-interest, not principle. Then the administration can't go along with it because it's uneven, and it just becomes another symbolic sideshow. Therefore, making any reforms sweeping is not a bug, it's a feature - because it's demonstrably fair in a way that a wide spectrum of voters understand.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.14.11 @ 12:08PM
Apparently they don't even have enough guts to defund the Center for Corporate Broadcasting which is an absolute waste of public funds. However, they are trying.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....eral-funds
biwah| 1.14.11 @ 12:16PM
Bill: Ponnuru agrees with you. He thinks a winning strategy for the GOP is to spend two years howling about things like a few million for public broadcasting, while pretend that they never promised to do anything about the things that actually affect the fiscal health of the nation. Somehow I don't think that's going to pay dividends among crucial indie voters in 2012.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.14.11 @ 12:26PM
They should start small and work their way up the food chain. Realistically, public broadcasting could be defunded as a trade off for voting for a rise in the debt ceiling. One line is all this is needed. If they don't start cutting and soon they will have lost the faith of the public and they are through. Many will not return in 2012.
biwah| 1.14.11 @ 12:40PM
I don't agree with you at all, but it will be interesting to see what tactical choices they make, especially on the debt ceiling issue. I don't recall "start small, go gradually" being the tone or substance of the Tea Party in the midterms. Once the shouting is done, most of the fallout from these symbolic battles will be with voters in the middle, and there will be no will or cooperation left to take on issues that actually matter fiscally. So even on a tactical level, taking on long-standing public goods is not a winning plan.
If you're talking about an intermediate step that actually matters, reining in federal pensions might be a better issue that captures more support from independents.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.14.11 @ 1:16PM
Federal pensions were reigned in during the 80's. There's not much left to cut there. Another angle is to eliminate all but three federal holidays for federal employees which would save about 12 billion each year. Since most private sector employees don't get the holidays it wouldn't be that tough.
biwah| 1.14.11 @ 1:47PM
OK, that was an off-the-cuff idea.