On entitlement reform, wait for Obama’s lead?
That’s the advice of Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor for National Review Online. Writing in the New York Times, he recounts failed attempts by Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush to reform entitlements and argues congressional Republicans need two things they don’t currently have before embarking on a new reform push: presidential leadership on the issue, and a clear mandate from the electorate to address Social Security and Medicare.
Here’s the gist:
Reforming these programs is vital to our nation’s long-term fiscal health — which is why Republicans should … 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.
(snip)
If Mr. Obama delivers a good-faith proposal for Social Security, for example in this month’s State of the Union address, then by all means Republicans should offer a serious counterproposal and, depending on their differences, negotiate. If he doesn’t, then Republicans should wait on a new president in 2013.
But they should do more than wait: in the event of presidential inaction, reformers should blame Mr. Obama for the lack of progress and work to make entitlements a litmus-test issue in the Republican presidential primaries. The goal should be to nominate someone willing to make a strong case for reducing entitlement growth as part of a larger strategy to restore American prosperity.
While Ponnuru acknowledges that we won’t truly get back on sound fiscal footing until we address entitlements, he does suggest that, absent a presidential push, Republicans should begin cutting elsewhere to prove they’re serious — and worthy of that mandate they’re missing on entitlements:
They should begin by freezing or cutting government payrolls, including in the legislative branch — something Republicans have already started doing. Message: the federal government is not just imposing sacrifices but sharing them. Then they should get control of the discretionary, or non-entitlement, portions of the budget, which are small only in comparison with entitlements. Only after winning those fights, and probably electing a new president, should the old-age entitlements be up for reform.
I’m torn. I agree that failure probably sets back reform efforts, a loss of time we can’t afford. At the same time, a lot of Americans understand we have no time to lose — will they be satisfied with ramping up to entitlement reform, while blaming the president?
On the one hand, presidential leadership is necessary on this issue, and the Republican majority in the House alone can’t force Obama to act. It would get more interesting if they could draft and pass solid legislation that could also clear the Senate, but that may be just as tricky as making Obama move if he’s unwilling to do so.
On the other hand, the GOP’s strategy on ObamaCare has been to pass a repeal bill in the House to prove to their supporters that they’re serious, even though they know they will need a new president and another electoral mandate to actually achieve repeal. What’s the difference between ObamaCare and entitlement reform? Sure, one difference is that millions of Americans are already on Social Security and Medicare. But as a means of proving one’s seriousness, it doesn’t get much more serious than taking the votes you’re able to take, when you’re able to take them. Unwinding the parts of these programs that we can’t afford is going to take more than one piece of legislation anyway.
Thoughts? Should Republicans chip away where they can, or just try to lay the groundwork for making this an issue in 2012?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
80 comments Add your comment
Richard
January 14th, 2011
1:24 pm
Right….an elected official is going to reduce entitlements. I’m not going to hold my breath.
My theory is that Republicans run on that promise knowing full well they wont do it. They simply have Obama and the lack of majority in the Senate as an excuse.
It will always be political suicide for a politician to reduce entitlements.
Tychus Findlay
January 14th, 2011
1:34 pm
Herbert Cain for ‘12. Small business turned large business owners understand that you can’t spend more than you take in. Politicians do not.
Tychus Findlay
January 14th, 2011
1:34 pm
*Herman must be Friday…
Wyle Kingfield
January 14th, 2011
1:37 pm
Let Sara handel it when she gets to 1600. Get this country back and boot out the lazy bums.
StJ
January 14th, 2011
1:39 pm
We’ve had 2 years of “entitlement reform” already. It could stand some “reforming” in the other direction…but yeah, don’t hold your breath on actual reform, at least not until the economy collapses.
ByteMe
January 14th, 2011
2:17 pm
What’s the difference between ObamaCare and entitlement reform?
Both reduce our long-term structural deficits? You probably didn’t mean that, though.
JF McNamara
January 14th, 2011
2:46 pm
Strategically, they should chip away, but not make it an issue. If you say you’re going to cut the entitlements, how is that ever going to be popular? There was a nationwide outcry that the Democrats tried to raise taxes on 2% of the population. Running on a platform to cut everyone’s benefits seems like a recipe for disaster.
The Republicans probably won’t win anyway. The South will be glowing pink, but the rest of the country will elect him. He will have saved us from the Great Depression and saw the stock market recover, ended two wars, extended healthcare to many who need it, overseen financial reform, and who knows what else by then.
Bush won while he had two wars failing, was extremely disliked, and had allowed a terrorist attack on his watch. If Obama doesn’t win, it says a lot about how rational we are as people regardless of the Republican’s strategy. Obama just hasn’t been that bad no matter what the rhetoric says.
Foxlor
January 14th, 2011
2:49 pm
The average ss check is $1100/mo and for this a probable full time job is openned for a x or y gen member who wants to own a home, start a family and buy lawn mowers, curtains, etc. When ss was started it freed up many jobs; may I ask the author what is planned when the troops come home? Corporate taxes must be changed with closure of loopholes and incentives for hiring US workers this is where the area needs fixing, corporations are sitting on trillions which will be put into emerging markets if nothing changes.
CJ
January 14th, 2011
2:52 pm
Kyle: “Unwinding the parts of these programs that we can’t afford is going to take more than one piece of legislation anyway.”
First, Kyle continually uses the word “ObamaCare” to describe the health insurance reform law that took effect last year. To be clear, ObamaCare is a partisan, focus-group tested word, used by the right to denigrate legislation containing provisions that Republicans previously had proposed and supported, including mandates to purchase health insurance and premium subsidies for the poor. But in an effort to make health care reform “Obama’s Waterloo,” the GOP turned against these provisions. Essentially, Republicans were for the Affordable Care Act until they were against it. (Read about the major GOP proposal in the 90’s offered as an alternative to a plan that the right then referred to as…wait for it…”HillaryCare.”)
With regard to entitlement reform, I suspect that the call to “unwind” Social Security and Medicare has less to do with affordability and more to do with ideology. Affordability is just one of the arguments for dismantling Social Security and Medicare. Another argument I’ve heard from the right lately, especially the Tea Party crowd, is that FDR and Congress never had the Constitutional authority to establish these programs in the first place. They must be correct because when a Republican politico says makes such assertions, he’s frequently waving a copy of the Constitution around (one pulled from his coat pocket)—a sure sign of expertise and reverence.
In fact, Social Security is fully funded for several decades into the future. I’m not aware of many businesses or funds, come to think of it, that are as secure as Social Security. If we want to extend it’s life further, we can convert Social Security taxes from a regressive tax into a flat tax by removing the cap on wages subject to the tax. Then, we can even slightly reduce the rate for both business and workers. No benefit cuts necessary. Non-problem solved.
Medicare, on the other hand, is the major source of projected deficits in the out years. Yes, the CBO has estimated that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by approximately $1 trillion over the course of a couple of decades. And that’s a good start. But there’s much more to be done.
As far as I can tell, the political right’s solution for Medicare is to do little or nothing about health care inflation—inflation that’s incomparable to that found in most other industrialized nations. They suggest treating the symptoms of our problem by whacking benefits to seniors. I’d like to accuse them of being lazy, but again, I’m quite certain that there’s an “enrich the rich” ideology at play here (with strong support from the Medicare and Pharmaceutical lobby).
Frankly, I don’t know the answers, but they’re out there. Some of our best hospitals, the Mayo Clinic for example, pay doctors a salary such that there’s no incentive to request unnecessary equipment, tests, procedures, or surgeries. Other countries and organizations pay doctors and hospitals based on outcomes rather than procedures.
We could also look into reducing the stranglehold that the medical community has on the supply of doctors available via their control of medical school admissions, internships, and residencies. Supply and demand, right? The lower the supply, the higher the price? The AMA and “free market” Republicans are aware of this basic economic principle and use it to their benefit.
In short, we don’t need entitlement reform, as the right and the media insists. We need to address health care inflation head on.
carlosgvv
January 14th, 2011
2:54 pm
Republicans will attempt to reform entitlements only when orderd to by their corporate masters. This also goes for anything else they do or don’t do.
CJ
January 14th, 2011
2:54 pm
Quick correction: Medicare went into effect under LBJ, not FDR. I heard that ex-President Harry Truman was the first to enroll.
CJ
January 14th, 2011
2:57 pm
MedicareMedical and Pharmaceutical lobby. Sorry Kyle.wallbanger
January 14th, 2011
3:16 pm
Entitlements need reform, but those reforms need to be phased in. Our representatives need to stop using those funds as slush funds for their weird/pet projects as well. And many government employees need to be cut, and their pensions should also be reformed, and quickly. It is obscene to think a governmental employee, who makes more now, than his/her private enterprise counterpart, also has unlimited healthcare and a pension after working only a relatively few years. And about reform–what happened to those work project bills that required people on aid to be trying to get a job? And why is Medicaid so abused–could it be governmental employees don’t do their job of policing it?
mrs. w
January 14th, 2011
3:18 pm
Social Security and Medicare…. What about government housing, food stamps? Aren’t these entitlements as well? What about the fact that nearly half of the population pays no tax at all? What about the percentage that actually get back more than they paid in? If I am forced to pay into something I don’t consider it an “entitlement” when I get my money back, even if I get back, in the end, more than I pay in.
DebbieDoRight
January 14th, 2011
3:25 pm
If the republican congress REALLY want to cut spending, they could do like the rest of America – take pay cuts to keep their jobs, reduce their health care benefits, work at the same job for longer hours and lower “perps”. But we know that REALLY isn’t going to happen don’t we?
DebbieDoRight
January 14th, 2011
3:26 pm
What about the fact that nearly half of the population pays no tax at all?
You mean the rich?
mrs. w
January 14th, 2011
3:52 pm
No Debbie – I mean the “poor”… BTW.. a perp is a perpetrator, usually of a crime. Perhaps you meant perk.?
detritusUSA
January 14th, 2011
4:00 pm
Before you repbublicans and conservatives touch Social Security and Medicare, you better end these two expensive, unaffordable and illegal wars. After that take a look at repaying the social security trust fund all the money that the politicians have stolen.
The last attempt at “reform” in 1983 was a travesty! The Social Security tax was raised on employers and employees, President Reagin and the plutocrats in congress then cut taxes on the wealthy, effectively using an increase in taxes on the lower and middles classes to pay for the tax cut for the wealthy. I’ve had no use for Reagin and his dupes since then.
Kyle Wingfield
January 14th, 2011
4:04 pm
@CJ: First, I’ll ask again what ObamaCare defenders don’t like to answer: If the law is so great, and if the president is so popular, why do you care if I call it ObamaCare? I don’t object to “Bush tax cuts.”
As for this line: “In fact, Social Security is fully funded for several decades into the future”:
I suppose that’s true, if by “several decades” you mean 26 years — SSA says it can only pay full benefits with tax revenues and reserves (more on that in a moment) until 2037 — and if by “fully funded” you believe the federal government can afford to make good on the trillions of dollars of Treasury bonds that make up the bulk of SSA’s “reserves.”
And I won’t rehash the argument about the bogus assumptions on which CBO’s projections are based. But I will point out that CBO itself says it’s pretty much pointless to make projections about such unsettled law (remember, the HHS secretary still has to decide what huge swaths of the law mean in practical terms) more than a decade out. Not to mention that, even with those bogus assumptions, almost all of the net reduction in the first decade comes before the program’s benefits are fully implemented.
braves87
January 14th, 2011
4:09 pm
@detritusUSA: Explain “illegal war”. Hope you’re not referring to the ones both houses overwhelming supported and voted for????
True American
January 14th, 2011
4:12 pm
Please tell me the difference between corporate welfare and regular welfare?
Are American tax dollars being use for both?
sam
January 14th, 2011
4:12 pm
Would you object to Bush’s Immoral War of Choice.
Donna P.
January 14th, 2011
4:14 pm
We should start with Welfare reforms FIRST. I have seen plenty of fraud at the local Kroger when I pay for my food and see a family in line separating out what they will pay on food stamps and what they will pay for themselves. No foreign born mothers should be receiving welfare benefits as well. If the government does an audit on Welfare, they can save $ millions.
detritusUSA
January 14th, 2011
4:14 pm
braves87. I don’t recall them doing their constitutional duty and voting for a declaration of war. If not then it is illegal.
Jefferson
January 14th, 2011
4:14 pm
SS fix – raise the employer contribution, eliminate the ceiling — that will add years to get past the boomers. You new kids think you are so smart and can save for yourselves, it don’t always go to plan — look how many can’t go a month without a check and sweat losing stuff.
These programs are to help people.
poison pen
January 14th, 2011
4:25 pm
Debbie, it’s obvious that the Democtats didn’t do it either.
Kyle Wingfield
January 14th, 2011
4:25 pm
“raise the employer contribution” — as if that doesn’t come out of our wages.
Junior Samples
January 14th, 2011
4:36 pm
oh…I get it.
It was a problem before Reagan, but if the current President doesn’t fix it, and soon, it’s his fault?
sam
January 14th, 2011
4:40 pm
herman cain! ha-ha-ha-ha. He has less experience then Obama did.
atlmom
January 14th, 2011
4:44 pm
We need to view social security as exactly what it is – a transfer of wealth from young to old. That is all. There is no ‘pension plan’ or anything of the sort from the government. Never can be.
As for ‘personal accounts’ – there are already plenty of opportunities for that if one chooses…the government SHOULD NOT be involved in ‘personal accounts’ because they will only become entitlements in the end.
sheeshLuise
January 14th, 2011
4:46 pm
Well Kyle, I will engage you on your little challenge and follow closely, as you are not very smart.
The problem with “ObamaCare” as a term is simply this – it is a disengenious rhetorical device used by detractors to rile up the uniformed masses against the President with a broader goal in mind. That goal is to undermine his presidency. And yes, “Bush Tax Cuts” is also a rhetorical device. However, you have no problem with it becuase it is #1 after the fact (of his presidency) and #2..you operate on the principle of sniffing the backsides of big business and the wealthy, whom they benefitted.
Conservatives/Republicans or whatever they want to be known as did this same thing when Bill Clinton was in office. They coined the term “HilaryCare” in order to generate disdain for the initiative by tethering her image (which the right hated quite frankly) to it. Same thing with ObamaCare. Let’s just stop pretending Kyle. This is nothing more than appeal to those who cannot stand to see that man occupying the White House. Quite honestly, medical costs/coverage continue on as they have been over the past 10 years, the only difference is now you cannot be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions and some other things that were not so just over a year ago. As long as you call it “ObamaCare” you can keep those uninformed idiots out there voting against their own best interests all because they visualize that brown face at the head of it. That repulses them more than anything. Again… let’s stop pretending Kyle. We know.. you must posture though..
Junior Samples
January 14th, 2011
4:47 pm
Anyone want to suggest that the HOPE scholorship is an entitlement?
Looks like I just did. Except that one is being funded by a regressive tax (lottery)for those who are simply bad at math, or have lost all other hope.
grizzybear
January 14th, 2011
4:52 pm
cap foreign aid to other countries period, this will save billions, or just get rid of all of it with the exception of humanitarian in cases of disasters.
name one
January 14th, 2011
4:55 pm
name one entitlement program that Republicans have eliminated in the last 30 years, especially the ones during the times when there was a Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress.
I’m waiting.
did you know that in the last 30 years only 10 of those years we’ve had a Democrat as President. that means do a little math and even with our Georgia Educational system I think we can all come up with the same number. that 20 of those years we’ve had a Republican President. now how in the world is everything the other side’s fault. sounds like a lack of personal responsibility and accountability to me.
now I will give you the 4 biggest entitlement programs of all time and they were all Republican creations.
defense contractors, oil companies, healthcare-pharmaceutical and other large corporations
the ‘greedy’ rich
mexicans
iraqis
no entitlement program ever created in history can come close to any those
and unlike the entitlement programs most of the people who wear mental blinders are referring to, these aren’t meant to hurt and corral it’s recipients, to help hold them back.
they’re meant simply to give somebody something for nothing. the exact thing those who support them say they are so against.
atlmom
January 14th, 2011
4:59 pm
If you raise the age of benefits for soc sec, then there is no need to ‘raise the employer contribution.’ It’s NOT the employer contribution, by the way, it’s YOUR compensation. You’d be paid more if not for all those mandates from the governments, so don’t fool yourself, if you’re going to raise the ‘employer contribution’ you’re going to lower your compensation, somehow.
Also, it’s not that the lower income people don’t pay ANY taxes, they just don’t pay INCOME taxes. Most of the people in lower brackets are still contributing to soc sec and medicare (some are not and that is because of ‘tax credits’ or, as most people would call it, welfare).
And, when the ‘economic stimulus’ was passed, the wars COMBINED from all years since 2002, was STILL less than the economic stimulus package cost us.
Kyle Wingfield
January 14th, 2011
5:05 pm
Sheesh, Luise: #1, I don’t recall anyone on the right objecting to the Bush tax cuts while Bush was still president; in fact, nearly everyone on the right called them “the Bush tax cuts.” #2, *everyone* benefited from the tax cuts, as we were reminded in the debate over whether to extend them for everyone or just the middle class.
And as long as you’re convinced that half the country is racist, you’re going to be puzzled why they keep “voting against their best interests.”
CUT THE MILITARY WELFARE
January 14th, 2011
5:07 pm
how much money are we spending to defend countries who spend next to nothing on their own defense? Korea, Phillipines, Israel, Germany… the list, and the billions and billions are endless.
Stop military welfare. Spend the money on AMERICANS
barking frog
January 14th, 2011
5:08 pm
They will still be waiting in 2015.
CUT THE MILITARY WELFARE
January 14th, 2011
5:08 pm
how much money have we spent to save the Iraqis, while the AMERICANS suffer?
Rafe Hollister
January 14th, 2011
5:13 pm
Kyle: the guy you quote is right, there is no way the Reps should address Soc Sec and Medicare until Barry brings them up or they have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. When it is done, the entitlement class is going balistic and will vote out those in power unless they succeed in making it seem absolutely necessary.
Even when proven desirable and necessary the fringe left will be enraged at the end of something for nothing America.
As far as Obamacare, the public is pretty much convinced that this is a disaster and of the need to repeal it. They need to move sooner rather than later. If it ever goes into effect, the something for nothing crowd will quickly become hooked and it will become more difficult to repeal.
Bush’s socialistic Medicare Part D has unfortunately already crossed the addiction line and now Barry is making it more addictive with his close the donot hole program, stuck into Obamacare. The Reps need to go after this budget busting fiasoo promptly as well.
atlmom
January 14th, 2011
5:17 pm
re: hope scholarship. It’s goal was to keep our best and brightest in GA colleges. I think it has been quite successful. Otherwise, those people would have left GA and would have probably never come back. now they stay, and usually stay after graduation. Darn successful. Not an entitlement.
AND – seriously – has created quite a few wonderful and great colleges. That are about impossible to get into. Another success.
atlmom
January 14th, 2011
5:19 pm
re: ‘tax breaks’ that ‘most people’ were against a few months ago.
WHY? Not because it gave tax breaks to a ‘few’ but because already our tax system is flawed, those at the top pay way more than ‘their fair share’ ALREADY, so making it more so would not ‘fix’ anything. AND most people are aware that raising THOSE rates, will only decrease total revenues to the treasury…
Coscro
January 14th, 2011
5:29 pm
It will all be over in 2012 anyway ha ha.
Cutty
January 14th, 2011
5:43 pm
Those Bush tax cuts didn’t make everyone happy since the first check of the new year took out more fed taxes then my last check of 2010. Im sure those ARRA tax cuts expiring have something to-do with it.
I’m still waiting for Kyle to speak on GDOTs complete incompetence this week. He likes to pillage Obama so much, but goes easy on those righties. Legislators legislate. Seems that getting reelected is the only thing our just elected legislators are worried about.
Not So Casual Observer
January 14th, 2011
5:47 pm
Sheesh @ 4:46,
I will cite an example of “inflammatory hate speech”:
“Well Kyle, I will engage you on your little challenge and follow closely, as you are not very smart.”
Your own words, Sheesh…!
At least Kyle is employed, I doubt from your comments that you have a passing knowledge of the contents of the health care bill.
If you still believe the bill’s main goal was health reform then you clearly have made no attempt to investigate the hundreds of new federal agencies and departments created by the bill, the number of new taxes imposed by the bill and all of the new government intrusions into our private lives.
Only an individual opposed to personal freedom and desirous of a government that tucks them in at night could support the abomination known as “ObamaCare”.
Lawrence
January 14th, 2011
5:48 pm
One of the biggest entitlements is Medicaid, where there is no payment by the recipient. No one wants to talk about that. At least, with Medicare and Social Security, the recipient has to make payments into the funds.
get out much?
January 14th, 2011
5:51 pm
Well, since we are still waiting for the Republican alternative to Hillarycare from 1994, as well as their alternative to Obamacare, I guess if we want anything done about Social Security or Medicare, Obama will have to lead the way.
Phil the Dawg
January 14th, 2011
5:51 pm
First, you should call them the Obama Tax Cuts now (President Bush set an expiration date on his).
Second, Social Security started running a cash deficit a few months ago (not 26 years in the future). The whole issue of the Trust Fund is irrelevant b/c we are faced with the exact same situation we would have if there were no Trust Fund. SS is projected to go back into surplus soon and should stay there until 2016 when it hits a permanent cash deficit.
Third – Since SS is in a cash deficit, if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, SS checks won’t go out within a few weeks. That could spell the end of the GOP.
Lastly, in order to reform entitlements, I think it requires a President in his/her second term to successfully take it on. It might even require a Democratic President. Therefore 2012 might very well be our last great hope b/c it will be too late after that. How’s that for a conservative reason to vote for Obama?
Not So Casual Observer
January 14th, 2011
5:52 pm
The Hope Scholarship program is funded by the lottery and thus not an entitlement program. The conversation regarding adjustments necessary to keep the program solvent will have no impact on the state deficit, only on the items covered by the scholarships and to what extent the coverage applies.
Not So Casual Observer
January 14th, 2011
5:56 pm
get out much? @ 5:51,
You must not. HB 3400 was the Republican alternative offered long before the vote on “ObamaCare”.
Nancy Pelosi would not allow HB 3400 to open for discussion through her control of the House legislative process. Do you now see what liars you support? Nancy herself continually whined there was no alternative offered and the MSM continued the lie.