Cantor Sees Current Medicare and Medicaid Programs As A ?Safety Net? For ?People Who Frankly Don?t Need One?
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on April 11th, 2011 4:36 am by HL
Having secured “draconian” cuts in a last-minute budget deal last week, House Republicans are hyping House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) new “Path to Prosperity” plan. The proposal professes to reform programs like Medicare and Medicaid to rein in spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade. But as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein notes, Ryan’s Medicare and Medicaid plans “rely on the same bait-and-switch: They use a reform to disguise a cut.” By making Medicare a voucher program and Medicaid a block grant program with $750 billion less in funding, Ryan’s plan forces seniors to pay more for the same benefits, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, and jeopardizes vital health care services for millions of low-income Americans.
Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace questioned House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) support for a plan in which Americans “pay more out of pocket.” Defending the proposal, Cantor argued that these programs sometimes provide a “safety net” for “people who frankly don’t need one” and that the shift of the burden from the government to the beneficiary will teach government “to do more with less”:
CANTOR: We are in a situation where we have a safety net in place in this country for people who frankly don’t need one. We have to focus on making sure we have a safety net for those who need it.
WALLACE: The Medicaid people — you’re going to cut that by $750 billion.
CANTOR: The medicaid reductions are off the baseline. so what we’re saying is allow states to have the flexibility to deal with their populations, their indigent populations and the healthcare needs the way they know how to deal with them. Not to impose some mandate from a bureaucrat in washington.
WALLACE: But you are giving them less money to do it.
CANTOR: In terms of the baseline, that is correct…What we’re saying is there is so much imposition of a mandate that doesn’t relate to the actual quality of care. We believe if you put in place the mechanism that allow for personal choice as far as Medicare is concerned, as well as the programs in Medicaid, that we can actually get to a better resolve and do what most Americans are learning how to do, which is to do more with less.
Watch it:
In reality, the Medicaid cuts will actually force states to do less with less. As the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky points out, Ryan’s block grant idea would actually “destroy Medicaid” because the annual federal appropriation would be less than projected growth. States would thus make up the difference “by increasing spending or (more realistically) capping enrollment, cutting eligibility, limiting mandatory benefits and lowering provider reimbursements.” Numerous GOP governors are already itching to do so. And for Medicare beneficiaries, not only would low-income seniors end up paying more for the same benefits, but health insurers “will likely cherry-pick the healthiest enrollees” thereby increasing the costs for sicker individuals.
The Ryan plan does, however, provide a “safety net” for one specific demographic. Ryan’s plan will reduce the top marginal income tax rate and the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent — a move that, as the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo notes, shifts the tax burden down the income scale onto the middle class. Given these priorities, it appears that, for Cantor, those in need of a safety net are America’s wealthy.
Cantor And Hensarling: Door Still Open To Hold Debt Ceiling Hostage
With the arrival late Friday of a compromise deal to fund the government through the rest of the 2011 fiscal year, eyes are turning to the looming fight over an increase in the debt ceiling. And today, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) reiterated to Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace his intention to hold the nation’s fiscal health hostage in order to advance the right’s ideological agenda:
CANTOR: We’re talking about putting in maximum caps as far as expenditures are concerned. We’re talking about changing the way that the entitlements work in this country for the future, while protecting today’s seniors. These are the kind of things that we’re talking about.
WALLACE: Let me make sure I understand. Obviously, that would be part of the 2012 budget. Are you saying you will impose them as part of the deal to raise the debt limit?
CANTOR: Just as we saw happened this week in Washington, there comes a time leverage moment here, a time in which the White House and the president will actually capitulate to what the American people want right now. They don’t want to raise taxes. They don’t want spending to continue to spiral out of control. Those are the kind of things and mechanisms — whether it’s spending caps, entitlement reforms, budget process reforms — these are the kinds of things that we’re going to have to have to go along with the debt limit increase.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) also piled on the bandwagon, pointedly refusing to give CNN’s Candy Crowley a simple “yes” or “no” answer on whether he would “play chicken with the debt ceiling”:
CROWLEY: So you will vote for the debt ceiling?
HENSARLING: The president’s going to have to cut up the credit cards. He’s gonna have to work with us to cut up the credit cards and put the nation on a fiscally sustainable path. Otherwise, we’re going to continue to continue to lose jobs and we’re going to bankrupt our children. It’s that simple. At some point you just gotta quit spending money you don’t have.
CROWLEY: But you’re not willing to play chicken with debt ceiling? Just yes or no if I could.
HENSARLING: Well, I don’t know what you mean by playing chicken. I’ve said the same thing three times. I do not want America to default on its debt. But the president is going to have to start the process of cutting up the credit cards, pure and simple.
Watch it:
It is widely understood — including among Republicans — that failing to raise the debt ceiling on schedule could have immediate and dire consequences for government services and the global economy. As the Center for American Progress’ David Min has pointed out, it would force an immediate cut of approximately 40 percent to all activities of the federal government; a severe blow to our already struggling economy. It could also erode confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds, causing interest rates to spike and the possible destabilization of global financial markets. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has acknowledged as much, as has House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), and conservative columnist George Will.
This has not prevented many GOP lawmakers, including the very politicians just listed, from threatening to vote down an increase in the debt limit if their partisan demands are not met. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said there can be no increase without entitlement cuts, Sen. Ran Paul (R-KY) demanded an implicit 44 percent cut in all government programs in exchange for an increase, Graham named slashing Social Security as his price by Graham, and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has called for using it to undo health care reform.
