Greg Sargent has a new ad from the NRCC being run against Dem Rep. Lois Capps.
The ad says:
Congress is debating big changes for Medicare. And Congresswoman Lois Capps voted for the most extreme plan. Capps voted for the plan the media says would decimate Medicare. Independent experts say Capps’ Medicare plan will cut Medicare benefits by 17 percent immediately—on top of the $500 billion Capps cut from Medicare last year.
The “most extreme plan” Capps is accused of supporting appears to be a reference to the oft-repeated claim by Republicans that Dems support doing nothing on Medicare—a claim that Post fact checker Glenn Kessler recently debunked....
...Dems have successfully cast the battle over Medicare as one between those who would save the program and those who would destroy it—or at least transform it so fundamentally that it would cease to exist.
As this ad shows, the GOP’s response is to muddy the waters by claiming that both sides agree Medicare needs to be cut and that the only difference is over the details—indeed, the GOP is now claiming that the Dem plan is more extreme than the Ryan plan. Cutting Medicare is now “extreme”; Dems have already proven themselves willing to take that step; Republicans won’t let Dems get away with it.
Dems have so far successfully shifted the problem of hugely unpopular Medicare cuts to the GOP, thanks to the GOP voting en masse to end the program. And it is so far proving to be a very solid argument going into 2012, which is probably one of the reasons House Dem leader Nancy Pelosi is pushing to be included in the negotiations—she sees a return of the House of Representatives to the Dems in the cards, if they can keep Medicare as a solid issue.
But with the Senate Dems and White House apparently negotiating Medicare cuts, that's not a given. Sen. Max Baucus let the cat out of the bag last week, offering up additional cuts to Medicare if the GOP would come to the table on revenue. Which means, there are already Medicare cuts on the table and at least some Dems are willing to pile on some more. That admission from Baucus is reinforced by this story.
Thus far, the Biden talks have identified an estimated $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion in spending reductions — two-thirds of the final goal. The challenge is to either close the gap with some mix of savings and revenues or retreat to settling for a shorter-term debt increase equal to the lesser savings figure.
For their part, Obama and Reid appear prepared to reach much higher, putting substantial Medicare savings on the table if Republicans would accept added revenues. With the House GOP leadership in New York, all of Monday’s White House maneuvering was Senate-centric. But Obama’s hope is that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), with whom he met privately last week, will be intrigued by a bolder package that might also help neutralize the Medicare issue now hurting the GOP among elderly voters.
Maybe Reid has already decided they can't defend the Dem Senate majority, so what the hell, give in now and maybe get something in return down the road from Republicans. Because that has already worked out so well for him. It's hard to say what Obama is thinking. But "substantial Medicare savings," beyond what we know is already on the table, can only mean benefit and provider cuts.
Which is giving up not just a big chunk of this critical program for seniors and the disabled, but all of the ground gained against House Republicans for voting for Ryan's disastrous budget.