ConservativeHome's The Republican

'Enough is enough': GOP freshmen respond to the CBO's latest economic outlook

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With the CBO predicting total US debt to overtake the size of the country's entire economy within a year, GOP lawmakers had a lot to say this morning.

Frustrated with Democrats' obstinate disregard for much needed spending reforms, here's a quick look at what a number of Republican freshmen had to say about today's CBO projections:

Senator Pat Toomey:

This CBO budget outlook further shows that out country is on an unsustainable fiscal course, with massive deficits and unrestrained federal spending. This dismal long-term outlook underscores my concerns that the president hasn't put forth a responsible plan to address our nation's fiscal future, and my colleagues across the aisle haven't even proposed a budget for the coming year. Our country has been operating without a budget for 784 days now, and it's clear that neither the president nor my colleagues across the aisle have a plan to tackle Washington's spending problem.

Congressman Joe Heck:

One week after the anniversary of President Obama’s recovery summer, Nevada’s unemployment rate is at 12.1%.  Despite numerous recent reports that our debt and deficit are severely burdening our economy, some in Washington want to spend even more. Washington needs to learn what Nevada families already know –we must stop spending money we don’t have

Congressman Robert Dold:

If small businesses were held to the same standard as the United States’ government, they would be out of business in less than a month.  Today’s report is troubling and should send yet another wake-up call to Washington- enough is enough, now is the time to rein in spending, cut red tape, and start putting America back to work.  Taxpayers have no more money to give and those who are out of work have no more time to wait. 

Congressman James Lankford:

If we continue with the status quo, our national debt will devour our entire economy. We must slow down the growth of government.

Congressman Tim Scott:

Three years ago, our nation’s debt was basically equal with the 40 year average in terms of GDP; by the end of this year it will be at the highest rate since shortly after World War II. The CBO projects by 2035, if our spending habits go unchanged, the interest payments on our debt alone will be almost nine percent of our GDP, an increase of 536 percent. For comparison, that is roughly twice what we spend today on Social Security. 

How much more time does the President need to acknowledge his policies are not working? 

Understanding why "Mediscare" works, and why the GOP needs to reply with clarity, honesty, and ideas

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

This post at the WSJ economics blog sheds a bit of light on why a good many Americans are prone to respond to fear-mongering on entitlements in just the way Republicans hope they won't: they aren't prepared for the future.

The post cites a study that's new, though it's based on data from the summer of 2009. Here are a few of the key findings:

• In spite of the demise of pension plans “the majority of Americans have not done any retirement planning,” Prof Lusardi writes. Only 42% of those surveyed said they have tried to figure out how much to save for retirement.
• Among those who are 45 to 59 years old, 51% said they had yet to calculate how much they’ll need.
• Only half of those surveyed said they had rainy day funds set aside that would cover them for three months.
• When it comes to credit cards, nearly one third of respondents engaged in a behavior that resulted in an interest charge or fee.

These, along with other data points in the paper, don't paint a catastrophic view, in my opinion. But they do show that a sizeable portion of the American public is suseptible to one of two manners of thinking:

1. Some are simply unreflective about the future because they feel "things will somehow work out." Threatening their sense of security by changing entitlement programs might give them less reason to think things will work out and set them against reform.
2. Some are actually counting on entitlements to provide security, and of course trying to change the programs will upset them.

Some people simply cannot prepare for the future because they're scraping by. But the others who aren't scraping by but are also not thinking too much about the future will likely oppose entitlement reform if they think they'll be getting less than what the programs give out now.

The challenge, of course, is to communicate broadly to the public that the choice between reform and status quo is a false one. Rather, the choice is between reform and higher taxes/lower benefits. That's the challenge for the GOP going forward.

Should the 2012 GOP candidate talk about how our spendthrift ways hurt future generations? Yes, absolutely

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Dorothy Rabinowitz writes in today's Wall Street Journal:

The Republican who wants to win would avoid talk of the costs that our spendthrift ways, particularly benefits like Social Security, are supposedly heaping on future generations. He would especially avoid painting images of the pain Americans feel at burdening their children and grandchildren. This high-minded talk, rooted in fantasy, isn't going to warm the hearts of voters of mature age—and they are legion—who feel no such pain. None...The Republican who wins will have to know, and show that he knows, that most Americans aren't sitting around worried to death about big government—they're worried about jobs and what they have in savings.

This has a compelling rationale to it, but it is a curious claim. It is clear that voters are incredibly frustrated by America's economic condition and want to see politicians talking more about jobs. And it’s clear that many Americans are down on the GOP plan to reform Medicare. But that doesn’t mean that the 2012 candidate shouldn’t talk loudly about the chief drivers of our fiscal problems.

Public opinion is impressionable. Strong political leadership can affect it a great deal. There are a number of reasons why the GOP frontrunner should want to talk about what Ms. Rabinowitz says he or she shouldn’t discuss:

• Paul Ryan has risen to be the face of the GOP precisely by talking about Social Security and Medicare. It was an unlikely rise, and one that many observers said couldn’t possibly happen. But it has. In fact, his persistence has now so firmly situated the issue of entitlement reform in the 2012 debate that GOP contenders have no choice but to talk about it. Rather than run from the Ryan example, the odds are that the candidate who best embodies the example will do well.

• Actually, Americans are sitting around worrying about big government. Now, maybe it’s not “most” Americans. But it's a significant percentage of likely voters. It’s certainly not just Republicans. Independents have consistently trended in a Republican direction on spending issues than toward Democrats. Last November provided some good evidence of just how a large cross section of Americans feel about how big government has grown.

• No GOP contender has to date proposed any plan that would change anything for seniors, just as the House GOP plan leaves people over 55 untouched. The message about burdening the future generation is for the future generation. The GOP frontrunner should talk about this issue precisely as a way to reach the working age population and build political will for real reform among those who still have a number of working years ahead of them. And he or she should continue to be clear that it has nothing to do with the benefits for those who have “paid into” the system their whole lives. The Democrats will demagogue the senior issue anyway, so being clear about a solid GOP alternative isn’t really something the GOP candidate has much say over. Better to make it a talking point, and be consistently clear about it.

• Voters of a “mature age” have, as a whole, less to worry about on the jobs front than younger Americans, whose job prospects are woven together with our fiscal situation. As a group, older Americans own most of the nation’s wealth. There’s a large working population that is worried about jobs and about government’s size. The candidate’s job is to tie those two issues together, and to do so precisely by talking about the biggest long-term drivers of government's growth: entitlements. It’s an important way to draw a contrast with Obama, who will also be talking a lot about jobs but will conspicuously avoid the big cost issues, as he is wont to do.

GOP freshmen say Geithner just doesn't get it

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Timothy Geithner went to Capitol Hill yesterday to speak with nearly 100 House freshmen in an attempt to secure a debt ceiling increase before the August 2 deadline. And while the Treasury Secretary emerged from the meeting confident that a fiscal agreement was within reach, GOP lawmakers remained less than impressed.

Despite Republicans' repeated calls for lowering spending and the fact that more than 150 economists say expenditure cuts should exceed any debt limit hike, the Treasury Secretary reiterated in the meeting the administration's view that income should be generated by tax increases on the wealthy, even though he also admitted that the country borrows too much.

Here's a look at what some of Washington's frustrated new Republicans had to say about Thursday's discussion with Geithner:

Congressman Tim Huelskamp:

I went in to the meeting with an open mind, truly looking for his solutions to address America's debt crisis.  Unfortunately, I left feeling very disappointed and jaded, as I am more convinced this administration has lost its grip on reality. Secretary Geithner offered the same crisis rhetoric this administration has been using for the past 2 ½ years. He said that in the event the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2nd that it would be ‘instant lights out.’ The Obama administration has been compelling Washington to employ its Big Government strategy by predicting doomsday if Congress fails to engage in a massive spend-and-borrow spree...As the manager of the Federal Treasury, it is irresponsible for Mr. Geithner to employ such scare tactics with Americans.

Congresswoman Kristi Noem:

Secretary Geithner doesn’t get it.  A bipartisan majority in the U.S. House voted down a standalone debt limit increase just this week, proving once and for all that the only possible path to extending the debt ceiling must include a substantial plan to cut spending in the trillions.  The House Republican freshman made it very clear to the Secretary that we take our country’s debt crisis and its impact on job creation very seriously and therefore we will not give this administration a blank check to spend even more...Giving this administration even more borrowing authority with no corresponding cuts or real spending reforms goes against every promise we made on the campaign trail last year

Congressman Adam Kinzinger:

I don’t think it we really made any progress. What is obvious to me is that we’re really far apart on where we need to go and what we need to do. And it did seem like he was there more to plead the president’s case than to listen to us...He talked about letting the [Bush] tax cuts expires and raising taxes and that for us is a non starter.

Congressman Joe Walsh:

I just spent 30 minutes with [President Obama's Treasury Secretary] and I am disgusted and discourged.  He just doesn't get the debt crisis...he fails to listen to the American people who are desperate for a change of course in Washington...I know American can do better than this. And the American people deserve better than this...Mr. President I'm here to change the game.

Congressman Mo Brooks:

It was not enlightening...There was nothing new covered. Everybody understands the risk associated with not raising the debt ceiling and aside from raising taxes, the secretary offered no specific solutions...[Geithner] was alternating questions between Democrats and Republicans, which means almost all the Democrats got to speak and only a few of the Republicans got to speak...And if you can imagine, some went beyond their one-minute limit.

Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle:

The House Freshmen met with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this afternoon. His comments confirm that President Obama is not yet serious about addressing over spending.

 

More than 150 economists say spending cuts should exceed any debt limit hike

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

After yesterday's symbolic debt ceiling vote, House Speaker John Boehner released a statement today signed by over 150 economists supporting the GOP view that to seriously address the country's "job-crushing, spending-driven debt crisis," expenditure cuts and budgetary reforms must be larger than any debt limit increase:

A debt limit increase without significant spending cuts & budget reforms will destroy American jobs:

An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government’s spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America.  It is critical that any debt limit legislation enacted by Congress include spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the president.  We will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we succeed in committing ourselves to government policies that allow our economy to grow.  An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth and represent a tremendous setback in the effort to deal with our national debt.

The full list of signatories is available to view here.

The 900 lb. gorilla in the entitlement room: America's declining fertility rates

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Jim Capretta is one of the best health care analysts and thinkers of our generation. Today, he has an article on one of the most important topics of our day that no one talks about: fertility's role in the entitlement programs that sit at the heart of our fiscal crisis.

Jim writes:

With so much discussion and political debate in recent years, one might think that every possible diagnosis of and remedy for Social Security's long-term financial challenges has been offered and debated. Yet there has been very little mention of the central issue in financing Social Security—namely, the long-term fertility rate. Indeed, if the U.S. fertility rate were expected to return to the levels seen in the 1950s and through the mid-1960s, the subject of Social Security reform would likely never come up at all. With higher birthrates, there would be no financing crisis, as the projected workforce in the decades ahead could support the growing numbers of elderly Americans. With no financing shortfall, politicians would gladly leave the program alone (emphasis added).

Anyone following the policy debates of late knows that Medicare, not Social Security, poses the greatest threat to our long-term fiscal health. It's common for legislators to make the observation that "Social Security is easy to fix" compared to Medicare. But Capretta's article shows that we could be in for a dramatic spike in Social Security's overall liability to U.S. taxpayers.

With relatively low fertility and rising longevity, the gap between Social Security revenue and spending is about to become very wide, and stay that way indefinitely...Social Security income (payroll taxes plus some taxes collected on benefit payments) will hover just below 5 percent of the GDP over the coming years. Today, Social Security spending is at a comparable level, but as the Baby Boomers retire, spending will soar and never fall back again to its prior level. The 2010 Social Security Trustees' report projects the excess of Social Security spending over income will reach about 1 percent of GDP and then stay there for most of the coming century. It is inconceivable that the nation could afford to run to such a large permanent deficit in Social Security (emphasis added).

Capretta doesn't cite it, but another disquieting trend in America is the declining work participation rates among men and growing out-of-wedlock childbearing in the middle class, both of which put a downward pressure on wages for a growing part of the population. Essentially, what this means is that we have a growing portion of the working age population that is contributing less to our programs providing income and health security to older Americans.

It's customary for us to say that America is not Europe, that we are somehow different and less dependent on the state. But the trends show us tracking with Europe in a fairly disturbing way. This chart, which shows the change in old age dependecy, pretty much makes that point.

Read the entire article here.

Time for Tea Party 2.0? The movement needs to update its rallying cry this summer

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

It's time for Tea Party 2.0. The movement and the issues that birthed it have both evolved. The question is whether its leaders realize that.

The Washington Times has an interesting article this morning raising questions about whether and how helpful the Tea Party will be going into 2012. It starts this way:

Republicans, once ecstatic about the energy generated by the 2009 anti-spending tea party uprising, are growing increasingly uneasy about the impact in 2012 of a movement that seems beyond the control of anyone, including its own leaders.

Meanwhile, in its headline story this morning Politico partially attributes Obama's latest bump in the polls and FL Gov. Rick Scott's sagging numbers to a "cooling of tea party passions." The story doesn't cite any evidence that the movement's passions are cooling. It's a highly debatable claim. But it's also noteworthy as a perception. The tea party doesn't appear publicly as focused as it has been.

Clearly the millionaire tea party imposter in New York's special election, Jack Davis, has many wondering if we witnessed a preview to what will become a trend going into 2012: the movement getting highjacked by individuals that end up working against the movement's aims.

But the real issue with the tea party, it seems, is whether it is as focused upon its mission as it was leading up to 2010. I think it is, judging by the money its core groups continue to raise and by the public events it continues to populate. But it seems the mission has changed, whether or not the various groups have completely figured that out and begun organizing around new objectives.

How has it changed?

In one big way: Tea Party 1.0, which led to historic gains in the House last November, was based on cutting (discretionary) spending. It's time for Tea Party 2.0, which needs to be based on reforming entitlements and the tax code. The movement's various leaders have not been as active or vocal on entitlements as they have been on spending.

The freshman class in Congress arrived in Washington thinking they were elected to cut spending, and then learned that the problems were much bigger and deeper than that. Tea partiers in Congress and activists around the country understand that the REAL mission is bigger than they thought, but the movement has not yet updated its rallying cry.

It needs to. If it does, it has a chance to get ahead of the public debate about Medicare reform going into 2012. It also has a chance to bring even newer, fresher faces to Washington who run on entitlement reform.

If any movement can turn entitlement reform into a winning issue for candidates, the tea party can. If it tries.

Mitch Daniels talks Medicare reform: "Americans are absolutely up to the job of making changes necessary once they understand the facts"

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In addition to discussing his 2012 decision, in an interview today on ABC's This Week, Mitch Daniels weighed in on Washington's heated debate over entitlement reform.

Offering his own views on the underlying issues facing programs like Medicare and Social Security, here's a look at what the Indiana governor had to say:

I think it is the central dilemma. I think it ought, therefore, to be the centerpiece of the next election, and we ought to test the proposition -- and I have faith that the answer will be yes -- that Americans are absolutely up to the job of making changes necessary once they understand the facts.

Adding that:

There's a way to [reform entitlements] that protects the most vulnerable seniors more. I mean, another, I think, important and positive point to be made is that our current system is brutally unfair. It is tilted toward higher-income people in many, many ways. There's no reason on Earth that we should be sending Warren Buffett a pension check or paying for Bill Gates' health care or mine, for that matter. And in the 2.0 system of Medicare and Social Security, for the next generation, not this one, we ought to heavily devote the resources to those who need them most.

What They're Saying: On the case for a Paul Ryan candidacy

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Representative Paul Ryan may not be running for President, but there are a lot of people who are holding out hope that he'll reconsider (and soon). 

Although former Vice President Dick Cheney would prefer that the Wisconsin Congressman didn't run (though Cheney says he "worships the ground Paul Ryan walks on" - high praise from someone not known for doling out such adulation).  But with Mitch Daniels out and the public debate over Medicare heating up, a growing number of Republicans and conservatives are calling for the House Budget Committee Chairman to reevaluate what he has said about not running for President in 2012.

ConservativeHome has already launched two campaigns in support of both Paul Ryan's Medicare plan and a possible 2012 bid (you can sign up in support of either here and here.) And when it comes to social media and grassroots conservatives there are already a number of groups dedicated to drafting Paul Ryan for President on Facebook (here too), and tweets tagged with #DraftRyan #ElectRyan #Ryan2012 etc. continue to grow on Twitter.

While it remains to be seen if Ryan will actually reconsider a presidential pursuit, with less than 18 months to go before the next presidential election here's a look at what a number of politicians and pundits have said in recent months about a possible Paul Ryan bid:

ConHome Editor Ryan Streeter wrote on The Republican on Monday:

Now that Mitch Daniels is out, Paul Ryan should reconsider running for President. He shares with Daniels a kind of purity of purpose that other candidates don't have but which voters want. Ryan repeated on Meet the Press yesterday what he has said before - that he's not planning on running - but his statements are a long way from an official renunciation of presidential ambition. He might change his mind if enough people got behind an effort to draft him. 

On Tuesday, Jonah Goldberg weighed in on the draft Paul Ryan effort in an op-ed in the LA Times, commenting that:

If Ryan ran, he would probably drive the other candidates further away from his own plan while forcing them to come up with serious alternatives of their own. If he got the nomination, many think he would clean Obama's clock in the debates.

It's a lot to ask. He has three young kids and would have to get organized and funded from a cold start for a long-shot run. But politics is about moments, and this one is calling him. Unless someone suddenly rises to the challenge, the cries of "Help us, Paul Ryan, you're our only hope!" will only get louder.

D.G. Myers posted via Commentary Magazine's blog:

Ryan’s ability to untangle complicated policy ideas, as displayed in the five-minute video that Pete posted, is second to none. Moreover, Ryan’s generous impulse to clarify and explain—to treat policy disagreements respectfully—is the ethos of a great statesman. Small wonder that Jonah Goldberg is chanting over at National Review Online: “Run, Paul Ryan, Run.

The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol "half jokingly" pushed for a Ryan-Rubio run back in January, commenting:

Having just returned from the e21 and Manhattan Institute-sponsored Conversation with Paul Ryan (very ably conducted by Paul Gigot)--and having seen Marco Rubio speak recently as well, I'll just say this: Wouldn't it be easier just to agree now on a Ryan-Rubio ticket, and save everyone an awful lot of time, effort, and money over the next year and a half?

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in an interview earlier this week that:

Paul’s about real leadership. I think that that’s what this public so desperately wants to do right now. They want to see Washington that will lead. They don’t want to see individuals that will dismiss the current problems as something that we can just sweep under the rug.

Back in April, AEI’s Steven Hayward commented:

Ryan looks like the one person who could electrify the Republican electorate, appeal to independent voters, and sustain an argument against Obama that would make for a decisive election.

Ryan is young, has young children, and has lots of reasons to wait. But one can't choose one's moments in politics. I can imagine a set of circumstances in which his budget proposal gets little traction against White House intransigence, and by the fall the political winds are such that entering the race makes so much sense that he has to do it. And increasingly he looks to me like the single best candidate the Republicans could field next year.

On CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, FreedomWorks chief and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey said of a Ryan run:

We have about two million activists across the country and, frankly, we are disappointed...Now, obviously, we have to start looking, and I was just saying this morning, maybe it’s time to start drafting Paul Ryan.”

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin blogged in late April that:

Ryan has said he doesn’t want to run, but sometimes the question of “want to run” is a luxury. There are times when the moment presents itself, the party and the country are receptive, and there is no one else quite as compelling. Think Bill Clinton in 1992. Ryan has some time, though not much, to decide whether he wants to fill the obvious gap in the GOP field. And if party activists, insiders, Tea Partyers and operatives think Ryan is the man, then they’d better start making their wishes known.

RealQuiet on RedState.com posted back in March:

Mr. Ryan has a plan to preserve the foundations that this country was founded on, maintain our freedom, and to stop the economic free fall, stabilize, and increase the prosperity of the economic engine that has been key in making this country what it was and what it could be again. 

Sign me up Mr. Ryan, I am with you.

According to Andrew Stiles, Congressman Devin Nunes fully backs the idea of a Paul Ryan candidacy. As "one of the first members of the Draft Paul Ryan facebook group", Nunes commented:

It would certainly be great for the party and the country if he did run.

Stiles also points out Congressman Tom McClintock’s support, who recently said:

Paul Ryan would make an excellent candidate and an excellent president..I've not heard any rumors that he's seriously considering it…But I still think it's a pretty good idea.

Washington post columnist Charles Krauthammer, a long time Ryan advocate, said earlier this week on Fox News:

This is his moment -- even though he's a young man -- this is the moment where I think he could do it, and he would be the one man who could make the argument, which will be the central argument in the campaign next year over the size and scope of government.

It's his time. I wouldn't just ask him or cajole him. I'd get a posse up there.

Adding in another Fox News roundtable on Tuesday:

I hope he feels personally wounded, he needs to be vindicated…I think he’s in a position where he’s the carrier of the idea…there’s nobody else who can do it on that idea

The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, also during a Fox News discussion, said of Ryan's recent remarks against running:

I think he is going to reconsider, I think he has to reconsider, because if you take his argument seriously…and that unless we do the kinds of things he’s proposing, that this country won’t be the same country anymore…it make his arguments about spending more time with his family appear less serious…is it more important for Payl Ryan to read his kids an extra story or is it more important for him to run and try to save the country? I do really think he might change his mind

Adding later that:

Movement conservatives not only are unhappy with the current field, but they are eager to see someone like Paul Ryan.

Medicare, media coverage and maintaining momentum: Herman Cain weighs in on his 2012 campaign

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In an interview post today on NRO's The Corner, 2012 contender and former Godfather's Pizza CEO, Herman Cain offered his views on his presidential chances, how he feels about the Ryan budget proposal and the media's coverage of his candidacy thus far.

With Cain currently boasting the highest Positive Intensity Score among the prospective GOP field, and having topped the latest ConservativeHome/Daily Caller 2012 survey, here's a look at what the newly announced presidential candidate had to say:

On Paul Ryan's budget plan:

I absolutely support Paul Ryan’s plan...It is exactly the kind of bold restructuring that we need in order to get our hands around the entitlements issue. We need to restructure programs, not just reshuffle, which is what we did for decades, and now look where we are...Liberals are trying to make it seem like we are going to throw old people off of the bridge...That is a lie. That is all they can say, because they don’t want to fix the status quo.

On the major networks lack of attention to his candidacy:

Occasionally, they ask me to come do an interview; then, right before it happens, they cancel it. There are a couple of theories out there about why this is the case. One is that I am the last person they’d like to see run against Barack Obama.

On winning the GOP nomination:

I can’t say who else might get in...But if you look at the announced candidates — Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and me — I think my chances of getting the nomination are just as great as their chances, and probably better than some of them.

On the early states:

I do not believe that the South, nor Georgia, is necessarily Newt Gingrich’s territory, simply because of the experience that he has there...We are going to do well in all of these early states. People are connecting with my message, with my commonsense solutions and my passion.