(Brian Snyder/Reuters)
Here's a
chilling reality:
WASHINGTON — In a significant shift driven by bipartisan concern about the looming long-term debt, Republicans and Democrats are no longer fighting over whether to tackle the popular entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — but over how to do it.
It's an indication of the degree to which Republicans have been able to set a political narrative, and the danger of Democrats falling into the deficit trap. What's all too rarely talked about by the Very Serious People who love to yammer about the deficit is how much the long-term debt would be improved with a normal, healthy employment situation. More revenue for Social Security and Medicare, less dependence on Medicaid.
President Obama's strong tone and focus on jobs this week could help change that rhetorical deficit obsession, at least until next week when we get his deficit reduction plan, which will call for the cuts to pay for his jobs initiatives and will include his plans for these programs. If his failed negotiations with Speaker John Boehner leading to the debt-ceiling debacle are any benchmark, those plans will include cost-shifting and benefits cuts: raising the Medicare eligibility age, implementing a chained Consumer Price Index for Social Security cost of living adjustments and creating a new, blended-rate formula for Medicaid support to states.
But now there's the possibility that the politics of the Republican presidential debate could change the trajectory of this safety net debate.
In the presidential race, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, the Republican front-runner of the moment, took the debate over entitlements to a level never before seen from a major candidate, calling for the end of all three programs as currently structured. In his debate with Republican rivals Wednesday, he amplified his claims that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a “monstrous lie” to younger Americans counting on the money for retirement. On Thursday, he circulated similar past criticisms from his chief rival, Mitt Romney, who defended Social Security in the debate....
Now Mr. Perry’s comments could cause Congressional Democrats to dig in against changing the entitlement programs, sensing a political advantage in 2012 — especially if Mr. Perry is the nominee.[...]
Many Congressional Republicans remain haunted by the experience of former President George W. Bush’s futile effort in 2005 to partly privatize Social Security, which contributed to the party’s loss of its House and Senate majorities the next year and convinced Congressional Democrats of the power of the issue.
More than half of Americans, 56 percent, would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who favored phasing out Social Security so that workers could invest their payroll taxes in the stock market, according to a nationwide poll in June by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News. That included 64 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents, whose swing votes decide elections, and even a 45 percent plurality of Republicans. Only one-third of Republicans said they would be more likely to vote for someone who espoused ending Social Security.
"Reform" pushing Democrats will insist that they are far from trying to privatize the system, that any kind of changes they are talking about would be far less disruptive to the system. But if you're talking benefit cuts, if you're talking the kind of massive cost-shifting each of the floated proposals would mean for individuals, private insurers and states, these are drastic and disruptive changes. In the case of the American people and the states, they couldn't come at a worse time. Many congressional Democrats understand this. Hopefully enough of them will balk at these benefits cuts, recognizing it's both smart policy and smart politics.
In the meantime, let's hope that Rick Perry keeps up that bombastic rhetoric.