Hensarling Ludicrously Claims Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap Will Not Cut Social Security Or Medicare By ‘One Penny’
On Wednesday night, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) successfully claimed the chairmanship of the House Republican Conference after his challenger, tea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), dropped out of the running. But just hours after his big win, Hensarling, ran into this familiar buzz saw for Republican deficit frauds when on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer he was completely unable to name any significant spending cuts he wants to enact.
Host Elliott Spitzer astutely laid out the hollowness of Hensarling’s proposal to cut $ 900 billion dollars of annual government spending through a Constitutional amendment by noting that Hensarling’s plans leaves massive portions of the federal budget untouched, making it almost impossible to find nearly a trillion dollars in savings. Hensarling tried to fight back, but offered only feeble talking points and assertions that he didn’t understand Spitzer’s math, prompting Spitzer to remind Hensarling, “Sir, you have a degree in economics.”
Hensarling only ran into more trouble when he spoke of a different plan he has endorsed — Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Roadmap for America’s Future. While proudly saying he has endorsed the Roadmap, Hensarling claims the plan would not “cut one penny” from Social Security or Medicare:
SPITZER: I want to go through category by category so the public can understand where we are. $ 2.3 trillion of this $ 3.8 trillion is in couple of areas, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt and defense spending, right? We can agree on that, I presume, right? That’s straight out of the federal budget. Now, are you willing to cut Social Security 25 percent this year?
HENSARLING: Oh, absolutely not. And again, Eliot, you know that you don’t have to cut one penny out of these programs. What you do have to do is ensure they don’t grow faster than the economy’s ability to pay for them. We can’t have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid grow at 5, 6 and 7 percent and the economy grow at 1.5 percent. … You have to bend the growth curve so they don’t grow as fast. I have co-sponsored Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future.” Not one penny of these programs is cut.
Watch it:
Hensarling — who does indeed have an economics degree from Texas A & M University — is either gravely misinformed about the plan he is endorsing, or willingly misleading the American people. As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo noted, “the Roadmap is an explicit attempt to balance the federal budget via severe cuts to Medicare and Social Security.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains, the “Ryan plan proposes large cuts in Social Security benefits — roughly 16 percent for the average new retiree in 2050 and 28 percent in 2080 from price indexing alone.” Meanwhile, “By 2080, Medicare would be cut 76 percent below its projected size under current policies.”
And after all that, Ryan’s Roadmap still won’t balance the budget. As the New York Times’ Paul Krugman noted, “the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $ 4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $ 1.3 trillion.”
U.S. Debt Proposal Would Cut Social Security, Medicare: The Tea Party versus Seniors
Bloomberg is reporting that the deficit commission’s proposals will include cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
The co-chairmen of President Barack Obama’s debt-reduction commission will propose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, as well as reductions in income tax rates in exchange for curbing tax breaks, according to a Republican aide who attended the meeting. …
The government is projected to run $ 8 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, which would push the national debt up to more than $ 20 trillion. Obama directed the commission to find a way to reduce the annual deficit to 3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product by 2015 from about 9 percent now.
Social Security and Medicare, the government health program for the elderly and disabled, will consume a steadily growing share of the federal budget.
It’s hard to see how you make significant cuts in the long-term federal deficit if you ring fence entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. Look at the United Kingdom, where to get the deficit under control they’re going to have to cut a lot of social spending.
But here’s what I see as the sticking point: Seniors. They always turn out en masse, of course, but in 2010 they made up almost a quarter of the voting electorate and went hard for Republicans:
Voters over 65 favored Republicans in this election by a 21 point margin despite leaning towards John McCain in 2008 by only 8 points.
Remember all those older tea party types who wanted the government to keep its hands off their Social Security and Medicare? Even setting aside opposition in the Senate and the White House, how does the House GOP cut old folk’s entitlements without sending seniors running back to the democrats for protection? Especially when old folks outfits like AARP (for which I am now sadly eligible) are basically Democratic interest groups.
Why All The Talk About Cutting Defense, Social Security, And Medicare?
What is the first thing a family does when money gets tight? Does he sell the car and the house? Does he quit paying his credit card bill? No, he does not. The car gets him to work. The house shelters him. The debt is required. Those are the last things a person cuts because they’re needs and obligations.
In America, Defense is a need. Social security is an obligation. Medicare and Medicaid? Well, that’s debatable.
What a family cuts first: the cable, music lessons for the kids, the lawn service, the high end groceries, going out to dinner, tickets to the Football game, vacation travel, …basically anything extra.
What the government cuts? Well, so far, nothing.
There has just been a lot of talk about cuts. And this idea by the House Republicans is a good start. Add all these cuts together and there’s some serious pocket change.
The reason people balk at these little cuts is because they’re near and dear to the various constituencies. Everyone loves their cable, but they don’t NEED it. Everyone loves the name brand groceries, but they don’t NEED it. No one likes to mow their own lawn, but they can do it. Sometimes a Staycation sucks, but you have to do it.
Many things that pass for necessary in the government are, in fact, luxuries. All these luxuries add up. Taking them away causes bad moods.
Oh well… It’s time to run the government like a responsible family runs their own finances. The problem, of course, is that so few American families are responsible these days. Well, everyone needs to shape up.
The party is over.
P.S. No one should save California. She needs to hit rock bottom.
The Party of Medicare
Excellent article from Shikha Dalmia about the Party of Medicare:
For starters, polls by the New York Times and Bloomberg have found that although a vast majority of Tea Party supporters favor smaller government, they don’t want cuts in their Medicare or Social Security, a contradiction perfectly captured in a sign at a Tea Party rally: “Keep the Guvmint out of my Medicare.” Indeed, the Bloomberg poll discovered that even though Tea Partiers dislike ObamaCare, they want Medicare to offer more drug benefits and the government to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. […]
Kentucky’s Rand Paul, who is running as an uncompromising apostle of limited government and free markets, has pulled the most distressing switcheroo of them all. A doctor himself, he denounced Medicare as socialized medicine. Yet he has balked at the idea of cutting physician salaries, even though American physicians make twice as much as doctors in OECD countries. Why? Because their cartel, the American Medical Association, both restricts the supply of physicians through insanely restrictive licensure requirements and controls the Medicare board that determines physician compensation, as the Wall Street Journal reported this week. Yet, Paul now maintains: “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.” (But he is just being fair – not pleading for his special interest of course!) Likewise, after calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, Paul is now talking less about reforming it and more about protecting it for those now reaching retirement age.
I think the biggest thing to watch for is a sharp pivot toward a strategy of pure generational warfare. Pay out 100% of promised benefits to the over 55 crowd and massively slash benefits for people under 40.
If You Like Your Medicare Advantage Plan, You Probably Cannot Keep It
Earlier this year, Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),
In response to a request from Sen. Charles Grassley (R–IA) and three other Republican Senators, Foster recently
The Senators requested an analysis of the relative impact of the changes on urban compared to rural areas. The letter from the Actuary declined to answer that question, saying his office had not made such a calculation.
However, we have done these calculations. Jim Capretta, Jason Richwine and I have calculated the impact of the Medicare Advantage changes—both in terms of lost enrollment, and lost dollars—for seniors and the disabled not only nationally, but regionally as well.
Taking into account those who remain in the less-generous Medicare Advantage program and those pushed out of it completely,
The bottom line is clear: As a direct result of the Medicare cuts used to pay for a massive Medicaid expansion and subsidy scheme under the new law, senior citizens and disabled Americans will pay more but receive less care, and despite repeated promises that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it,” half of those who like the Medicare Advantage plan they’ve chosen will not be able to keep their plan. Even those who are able to keep their plan will find that it’s not the same plan any more—it will have higher out-of-pocket costs and cover fewer services.
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Boehner Endorses More Medicare Spending: Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?
By Daniel J. Mitchell
While flipping through the radio on my way to pick my son up from school yesterday afternoon, I was dumbfounded to hear Congressman John Boehner talk about repealing Obama’s Medicare cuts on Sean Hannity’s show.
I wasn’t shocked that Boehner was referring to non-existent cuts (Medicare spending is projected to jump from $ 519 billion in 2010 to $ 677 billion in 2015 according to the Congressional Budget Office). I’ve been dealing with Washington’s dishonest definition of “spending cuts” for decades, so I’m hardly fazed by that type of routine inaccuracy.
But I was amazed that the presumptive future Speaker of the House went on a supposedly conservative talk radio show and said that increasing Medicare spending would be on the agenda of a GOP-controlled Congress. (I wondered if I somehow misinterpreted what was being said, but David Frum heard the same thing)
To be fair, Boehner also said that he wanted to repeal ObamaCare, so it would be unfair to claim that the interview was all Bush-style, big-government conservatism. But it is not a positive sign that Boehner is talking about more spending before he’s even had a chance to pick out the drapes for his new office.
Boehner Endorses More Medicare Spending: Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss? is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
A Medicare Trial Period
David Leonhardt has an excellent column on how the real problem of the deficit boils down to Medicare and suggests a solution:
In the new issue of the journal Health Affairs, two doctors, both former Medicare officials, have laid out a plan to do so. It would give expensive new treatments three years to prove that they worked better than cheaper treatments, or their reimbursement rates would be cut to that of the cheaper treatments.
I understand that the idea will strike some people as — gasp — rationing. More modest ideas were shouted down during the debate over health reform. But I’d urge anyone who does not like the doctors’ plan to think a bit about how Medicare should be changed. The status quo isn’t really an option.
The article in question is from Stephen Pearson and Peter Bach and the article is here.
The proposal strikes me as a strong one. Still, to me the really striking thing about the market for health care delivery is the absence of innovations that are aimed primarily at cost-saving. In other sectors of the economy we frequently have firms built around the idea of slightly reduced quality in exchange for dramatically reduced cost. In health care, not so much. That makes it difficult for costs to do anything other than explode.
The Party of Medicare
George Zornick’s post on the “US” Chamber of Commerce’s ads bashing Tom Perriello focus on Chamber-centric issues, but there’s a broader point to be made:
In Virginia’s fifth Congressional district, Democratic incumbent Tom Perriello has faced an onslaught of attack ads funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. One such ad implored voters: “Government run health care. Medicare cuts. Have you had enough? Tell Congressman Perriello, stop hurting Virginia families.” As ThinkProgress reported, it’s possible that the Chamber’s attack ads are being funded by foreign money; the Chamber has yet to disclose who, exactly, funds its attack ads.
All’s fair in politics, so if the party of small government wants to win a midterm election by bashing Democrats for cutting Medicare they’re welcome to do so. But insofar as the issue at hand is ideology rather than partisan politics, one is going to be hard-pressed to see a campaign won in this manner as a thundering endorsement of a libertarian approach to health care or spending. Indeed, it mostly serves as an indication of how difficult it will be to ever repeal the Affordable Care Act once its benefits are locked into place.
The Party of Medicare
George Zornick’s post on the “US” Chamber of Commerce’s ads bashing Tom Perriello focus on Chamber-centric issues, but there’s a broader point to be made:
In Virginia’s fifth Congressional district, Democratic incumbent Tom Perriello has faced an onslaught of attack ads funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. One such ad implored voters: “Government run health care. Medicare cuts. Have you had enough? Tell Congressman Perriello, stop hurting Virginia families.” As ThinkProgress reported, it’s possible that the Chamber’s attack ads are being funded by foreign money; the Chamber has yet to disclose who, exactly, funds its attack ads.
All’s fair in politics, so if the party of small government wants to win a midterm election by bashing Democrats for cutting Medicare they’re welcome to do so. But insofar as the issue at hand is ideology rather than partisan politics, one is going to be hard-pressed to see a campaign won in this manner as a thundering endorsement of a libertarian approach to health care or spending. Indeed, it mostly serves as an indication of how difficult it will be to ever repeal the Affordable Care Act once its benefits are locked into place.
The Verdict Is In: Medicare Advantage Will Suffer Under Obamacare
The outlook for seniors’ Medicare Advantage (MA) plans is grim under the new health care law. Though seniors’ premiums will
Medicare Advantage is a popular alternative to traditional fee-for-service, allowing seniors to choose their health plan from among participating private plans. If seniors choose a plan that is less expensive than the benchmark price, they receive a rebate that can be used to add extra benefits, such as dental or vision care, or to reduce co-payments or premiums.
The new law, however, will lower the benchmark price set for MA plans.
This is not news.
Book and Capretta
Regardless of which outcome a particular patient experiences, every patient who would have enrolled in an MA plan under prior law will experience a loss in the value of his or her Medicare coverage. … Instead of reducing waste, the MA cuts will simply cut health care services available to patients and transfer spending from Medicare Advantage to other federal programs and other payers (including patients), thus increasing federal and state spending on Medicaid and patient spending on Part D, supplemental care plans, and out-of-pocket costs.
The effects of such aggressive cuts to Medicare Advantage were known well before the passage of the new law. Last summer,
In an unprecedented move, CMS silenced Humana’s and all other providers’ communications regarding the health care proposals before determining if they violated any law.
Although CMS’s actions generally conformed to its policies and procedures, the September 21, 2009, memorandum instructing all MA organizations to discontinue communications on pending legislation while CMS conducted its investigation was unusual. Officials from the MA organizations and CMS regional offices that we interviewed told us they were unaware of CMS ever directing all MA organizations to immediately stop an activity before CMS had determined whether that activity violated federal laws, regulations, or MA program guidance.
All told, seniors got a raw deal in the new health care law. Rather than reform Medicare
