Entitlement Reform, American Spectator Style
Over the past few years, Rep. Paul Ryan has led a successful campaign to make his prescriptions for the country’s mounting debt the Republican Party’s as well. Having committed the entire GOP to a politically risky program of spending reductions and ascended to the chair of the House Budget Committee, the Wisconsin congressman’s next objective is to see his proposed reforms become law.
To do that, though, he’ll have to win over the general public – not just conservative lawmakers.
His plans include a number of items that usually poll poorly among voters. Perhaps the most risky provision would be transitioning Medicare from an open-ended fee-for-service model to a competitive bidding system, in which each enrollee received a subsidy to purchase private insurance. Traditionally, any attempts to cut Medicare spending are punished at the polls.
Ryan’s strategy for avoiding an electoral backlash has long been to cast his plan, called the Path to Prosperity, not as a radical change, but as one of two inevitable alternatives. President Obama hasn’t laid out a comprehensive reform plan to rival Ryan’s (remember Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s words: “We're not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we don't like yours”). Accordingly, Ryan argues that the choice is between the Path to Prosperity and the status quo, which will entail stagnation and crippling debt and taxes.
That framing of the Path to Prosperity has received its strongest and most comprehensive treatment yet in a symposium in this month’s issue of The American Spectator.
The package begins with an introduction from James Piereson, the president of the William E. Simon Foundation, boldly titled “A Time for Choosing.” That, of course, was also the title of the speech Ronald Reagan gave boosting Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election that helped define Reagan’s presence on the national stage. Piereson writes:
This issue of The American Spectator is dedicated to clarifying the choices facing the American people and demonstrating how the principles of choice and competition can be marshaled to place our entitlement programs on a sustainable financial foundation while allowing citizens the flexibility to adapt them to their personal circumstances. The reforms outlined in this symposium are fundamental and far-reaching. If adopted, as they eventually must be, they will take the nation off its dangerous fiscal path and restore the faith of taxpayers and creditors that its bills will be paid and its promises kept. And if they are not adopted—well, we know what has happened to countries that have waited too long to put their fiscal houses in order.
In his own piece, Ryan argues that the allowing the status quo will result in “15 bureaucrats” – a reference to the Independent Payment Advisory Board formed by the Affordable Care Act – making health care decisions for individuals. He concludes that such a result would clarify the options presented by the two parties:
It is so rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract. But that is where we are.
The President's approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hardworking taxpayers, and commits our great nation to a future of debt, doubt, and decline. This approach is proving unworkable—in our Congress, in our courts, and in our communities.
The contrast between the President's approach and ours could not be clearer. We put our trust in citizens, not government.
The long-time conservative policy hands Peter Ferrara and Stephen Moore team up for the third piece in the installment. They believe that Ryan has found the way to win the public over on sweeping reforms, namely, by offering some the choice to opt out of the system instead of forcing everyone into a different program. Ryan’s Medicare reform, which would preserve the traditional Medicare program but also provide seniors with a choice of private plans, follows that logic. Interestingly, Ferrara and Moore suggest taking a similar approach to Social Security. Famously, President George W. Bush tried to enact such a reform, and was handed a political defeat. Ryan, on the other hand, leaves Social Security mostly untouched in his plan.
David Bass, a young journalist from North Carolina, wraps the symposium up with an examination of what entitlement reform would mean for Millennials. Although discussions of the debt usually focus on the impact spending cuts would have on those who have already retired or are about to reach retirement age, Bass points out that it is the younger generation that will be asked to pay down the debt and support the Baby Boomers in their old age. Given that members of the Millennial generation are lucky if they have jobs right now, facing that future is daunting.
Paul Ryan’s ideas and proposals will shape the 2012 election and the next Congress – and possibly the course of U.S. governance. Whether or not you share his outlook, it’s important you understand his motivation.
