Ryan Streeter
When we look back in a few years at the debate over entitlement reform, we will likely regard the past 10 days as a game-changing moment. Why? Because within a 5-day stretch during this period, Indiana and New Jersey governors Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie gave nationally-covered speeches in which they challenged lawmakers to get real and to be bold about the need to reform Medicare and Social Security.
The speeches, taken together, should be remembered as the moment when political courage became the name of the game on entitlement reform.
In between the speeches, President Obama released his budget, which failed to include any provisions on entitlements. Coverage of the governors' speeches has colored the public debate about how Republicans should deal with the President's budget and their own budget that they will release in April.
Michael Barone addressed the significance of the Daniels/Christie speeches in his column yesterday. I would like to pick up on this theme and suggest that there are three specific considerations that the Daniels/Christie speeches have altered for congressional Republicans.
Responsibility. Before Daniels/Christie, there was still plenty of room for lawmakers to hide under the cover of various arguments against entitlement reform, and to do so fairly respectably. After Daniels/Christie, standing still on entitlements is a dereliction of duty. The two governors made such highly publicized, well-received calls for elected leaders in Washington to deal with entitlements as an issue of responsibility and leadership, that not doing so will be treated by observers in and outside the media as irresponsibility.
Politics. Before Daniels/Christie, there were plenty of political reasons for avoiding entitlement reform before 2012. After Daniels/Christie, the political barriers are lower – even if they are still challenging. The big assist on this front came from the President, who gambled in his budget that by avoiding entitlements, he would make Republicans go first and hopefully imperil their 2012 chances as a result. Daniels and Christie both essentially delivered the message that good policy results in good politics, and that Americans are ready to be dealt with as adults. Judging by how directly David Gregory grilled Sen. Durbin on Meet the Press over the White House’s politicization of entitlements in the budget, it’s clear that the political landscape is changing. Daniels and Christie don’t get all the credit for this, but their speeches came at just the right time and have had an effect.
Popularity. Before Daniels/Christie, the belief that it was too risky to mess with programs that enjoy popular support was fairly widespread. After Daniels/Christie, that belief has less justification. Both governors have made budget-cutting and fiscal austerity central to their agendas without hurting their popularity. In fact one could argue that their agendas have boosted their popularity. As Barone points out in his column, Obama carried Indiana in 2008 while Daniels was re-elected by a 58-40 margin. Christie, in his characteristically blunt style, bragged about his popularity ratings in his speech as a way to chide those who think tough decisions necessarily result in unpopularity. One can still argue that Medicare and Social Security are simply different and carry with them greater political risk. But that argument has less merit than it did 10 days ago.
The last month has been marked by internecine squabbles among Republicans on spending cuts and entitlements, followed by a truly awful Obama budget that forced Republican leaders to commit to entitlement reform in their own budget. The Daniels and Christie speeches came at just the right time. They have changed the landscape. How much is difficult to assess at this point, but their effect has been real. If Republicans don't take up the mantle of political courage that Daniels and Christie have admonished, it may be foisted upon them by the media and an impatient public.
Comments