ConservativeHome's The Republican

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: Democrats claim to be the defenders of Medicare, yet they stand idly by while Medicare goes bankgrupt

Natalie Gonnella

As Democrats continue to ignore the need for Medicare reform, Congressman Eric Cantor today hit back at both their disregard for the program's looming insolvency, and their attack on the GOP's attempt to salvage Medicare's long-term future.

Here's a quick look at what the House Majority leader had to say:

The latest Medicare Trustees report makes clear that the program is much closer to bankruptcy than believed even last year, and that the program is in far more trouble than the Trustees or CBO had projected. The truth is that Medicare taxes and premiums only cover a little more than half of the cost of the program, and most Americans understand that the program needs to be changed to preserve and protect it for future seniors. That is why Republicans have offered a plan to guarantee benefits for seniors and those approaching retirement while ensuring that this important safety-net exists for Americans under 54 years of age.

In stark contrast, the current Democratic plan for Medicare - endorsed by President Obama, Leader Reid, and Leader Pelosi - is the rationing of care, elimination of benefits, and bankruptcy of the popular program. Even worse, while Democrats do nothing to save Medicare from collapse, they have tried to scare seniors by mischaracterizing real solutions to strengthen and save the program and using those efforts as a political weapon.

Cantor's full statement and other related information is available to view here.

What They're Saying: GOP leaders remain skeptical about the President's upcoming speech

Natalie Gonnella

Although congressional Republicans are somewhat pleased that President Obama is finally "joining the discussion" to address the country's overwhelming fiscal crises, they remain skeptical about his soon-to-be (re)released debt reduction plan, which is rumored to reiterate the Administration's previous calls for tax hikes on wealthy Americans.

With less than an hour to go before the President's speech, here's a quick look at what GOP leaders have had to say about about their expectations for this afternoon's statement: 

House Speaker John Boehner

I’m pleased the President has finally joined the discussion, but the Ryan budget has set the bar...[I]f the President begins the discussion by saying we must increase taxes on the American people – as his budget does - my response will be clear: tax increases are unacceptable and are a nonstarter.  We don’t have deficits because Americans are taxed too little, we have deficits because Washington spends too much.  And, at a time when the American people face skyrocketing prices at the pump, energy tax hikes are a particularly bad idea...The President needs to demonstrate leadership and show American families and small businesses that he is serious about addressing Washington’s spending problem.  I’m hopeful that he will use his speech to provide specific solutions, rather than more empty promises.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

The truth is, the President is only entering this debate at all because he can no longer ignore the growing bipartisan calls for action. If he were serious, he’d be talking about a detailed roadmap for action, not just grabbing headlines by announcing another speech.

“Of course, we can hope that the President presents more than just his vision for the future this afternoon. But those who’ve hoped for that from this president have been disappointed many times before. 

No doubt we’ll also get a fair share of finger-pointing, and an attempt to cast Republicans in the worst possible light for actually laying out a serious plan to address the crises we face while others merely talk about their vision. But we can still hope that the President leaves the scapegoating aside for a change, and finally admits the obvious: that we can only solve these fiscal crises if we do so together.

So either the President agrees today that Republicans have a point when it comes to the seriousness of our fiscal problems and admits that the old approach of pretending they don’t exist won’t work anymore, or those problems will become harder and harder to solve. 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:

He’s been standing on the sidelines expecting the rest of us to make the tough decisions to lead this country...I hope we don’t have a re-do and a do-over on the tax agreement that we came to last December. Again, this was an issue that was litigated in the election last fall, and as we approach tax day in a few days in this country it is just foreign to most people that we’re going to address our problems by raising taxes on the very people we expect to jump back into the game to create jobs, and those are our small business people.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy:

[The President] is just trying to reframe [the debate] because his first movie didn't work, so now he's filming the sequel...In history, the sequel isn't as good as the first one, and the first one was already a box office bomb...What I see is the president losing the argument. When in modern history have you seen a president trying to redefine a new budget?

In response to recent violence, members of the GOP stand up for Israel

Natalie Gonnella

In their reaction to recent attacks in Israel, a number of Republicans have reiterated their backing of "robust" US support to the country, including increased pressure to end the anti-Israel incitement heavily present within the Palestinian territories, and challenging the Obama Administration to reevaluate the steep, one sided concessions being pushed upon the Israeli government.

In the first week's of March alone there has been the bus bombing in Jerusalem (which claimed the life of one Israeli citizen while also wounding 25 others), repeated shelling from Gaza militants, and the brutal murder of a Jewish family inside their West Bank home.

Below are a few of recent statements from prominent Republicans condemning the recent violence and calling for President Obama to rethink his view on US foreign policy with regard to Israel:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a statement criticizing the Obama Administration's harsh treatment of Israel that:

Today’s bombing in Jerusalem is another chilling reminder of the obstacles Israel faces in its quest to live in peace with its neighbors. Israel is a true friend to the United States and a vital strategic ally in an unstable region. In the face of unremitting terror, Israel can count on the continued support of the United States as exercises its right to defend its people.

Within the past two weeks, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza have launched dozens of unprovoked rocket attacks at innocent Israelis, while in the West Bank a terrorist brutally murdered a family as they slept in their home. These attacks must not be downplayed as mere episodes in a game of tit-for-tat between Israelis and Palestinians. There is absolutely no justification for deliberate and deadly attacks on innocent civilians.

This kind of violence does not emerge in a vacuum; it is incubated through education and nurtured by popular culture. The sooner the world comes to grips with this reality, the sooner that there will be peace in the region. That’s why we must use the recent attacks to address the root cause of this violence: anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian mosques, schools and media – and the blanket refusal on the part of the Palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist that it has created.

The Administration has called on Israel to make sweeping concessions that I believe will endanger its security, but it doesn’t seem to demand similar from the Palestinians. That’s why I support bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate that call on the White House to put an end to anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian territories. No matter how much we desire Mideast peace, it will remain a pipe dream so long as Palestinian culture makes martyrs of terrorists who target innocents.” 

Freshman Senator Marco Rubio, who visited Israel shortly after he was elected in November, commented that:

The bombing in Jerusalem is another tragic reminder of the persistent threats to Israel’s security. I condemn this murderous act in the strongest terms and pray for the victims, their families and the entire state of Israel that mourns.

As long as terrorists reject Israel’s right to exist and deploy these types of heinous acts, there cannot be lasting peace in the region. America has a responsibility to stand with Israel and support its right to protect the Israeli people. We must also insist that the onus for change to achieve a two-state solution be on rejecting violence and accepting Israel’s existence.

House Foreign Affairs Commitee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who has been a very vocal advocate for US political support of Israel, said of the situation:

This attack in Jerusalem, and the continued attacks on Israel from Gaza, are sobering reminders that extremist groups and their state sponsors continue to pose a clear and growing threat to Israel. 

Violence against Israel perpetrated by extremist groups is relentless, and illustrates the need for the U.S. to continue to provide robust security assistance to our key ally. The same extremists who seek Israel’s destruction also seek the destruction of the United States. Strengthening Israel’s security against our common enemies also strengthens U.S. security. 

We must also provide strong and unequivocal political support for Israel by opposing efforts to pressure Israel into making concessions, as well as efforts to deny Israel and other democracies the right to defend themselves against extremist threats.

Do ask, do tell: we should be hearing more from GOP leaders on the issue of military spending

Ryan Streeter

Writing for the Daily Caller about Eric Cantor's comments this morning that defense spending cuts are "on the table," Chris Moody reports:

The GOP’s “Pledge to America” unveiled in September outlined a number of budget-cutting measures, but left defense untouched. While more than 50 members co-signed a letter in October that urged the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to consider cutting the defense budget, only two Republican House members, Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina, put their names on the list.

Moody rightly points out in the article that GOP members who have resisted defense spending cuts might be in a bit of a bind as they try to respond to voter's wishes for spending reductions.

One might argue that events have now overtaken the Pledge. The voter sentiment that was channeled through the polls on November 2 likely wants bigger cuts than what the Pledge proposed. Nick Gillespie at Reason makes this very point and takes aim at military spending:

The only folks more hellbent on maintaining the military status quo than the president are the Republicans. Failed presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has already lashed out at freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for his supposed "isolationism" and readiness to entertain cuts in defense spending. McCain and other hawks will get ideological support from courtiers such as The New York Times' David Brooks, who has pulled out of mothballs his '90s-era call for a "national greatness conservatism" in which military might plays a starring role, and AEI scholars such as Danielle Pletka and Thomas Donnelly, who argued in the Washington Post that the GOP will become "a combination of Ebenezer Scrooge and George McGovern" if it cuts defense spending one farthing. That's inertia you can believe in. 

This is, I worry, going to be a growing line of thought over the next few months that could drive legislative decision-making whose consequences we don't understand. The public is starting to understand that reducing what we spend on entitlements, for instance, will have some palpable consequences. I don't think very many of us are even close to understanding what "cutting the military budget" means. No one should make any decisions on this until there has been an open public debate about the consequences.

Voters should ask their representatives what they plan to do, and congressional members should tell us where they stand. In order for this to happen, our representatives should be able to answer some questions:

• If you are open to cutting the defense budget, can you identify ways to do this without compromising the personnel levels, equipment necessary to protect our soldiers, and the modernization to keep them ahead of the bad guys?
• Do you know of areas in the defense budget where we are wasting taxpayer money on technology and equipment that is no longer needed?
• Do you think we can reform military medical and retirement benefits to curb spending which, as Kori Shake pointed out yesterday on Platform, has been spiraling upwards just as it has been in the private sector?

Until members can articulate answers to these questions, I don't see how anyone can say he or she supports reductions to defense spending.

Representative Eric Cantor weighs in on GOP plans, tax cuts and future free trade agreements

Natalie Gonnella

Soon to be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor spoke to the WSJ’s Robert Thompson about GOP plans for the 112^th Congress.

On the Republicans' approach to 2011, Cantor commented:

 I think it's important that Congress say no to anti-business, anti-growth regulation. But at the same time, we've got to go about putting in place signals and policies that are incentives for capital formation.  Ultimately, we've got to lower the price of risk for all of you.

Speaking further in the interview with regard to trade and the economy, Cantor said:

I think that you can count on a Republican-led House to push some free-trade bills this session, because we believe very strongly that there are a lot of jobs to be gained if we can get back on track toward free trade. Now, politically that also means we've got to address the sense of fair trade, making sure that we are applying the rules under which the international community engages in multilateral or bilateral trade. That seems to be the political challenge that we've got, because somehow, the electorate, especially in the states that have suffered manufacturing losses, seem to think that all that's happening is growth of jobs overseas without any sense of job growth at home.

In addition to the excerpts above, Cantor also contributes insights on tax cuts, deficit reduction and the future of the retirement age. The full interview can be read here. 

Larger majority will help Boehner perform better than Gingrich, predicts NRO, but Politico sounds warning about Cantor relationship

Tim Montgomerie

On National Review Ramesh Ponnuru compares the challenges that faced Newt Gingrich after his victories in 1994 with those facing John Boehner today. Because Boehner has a larger majority and a more conservative, experienced grouping, Boehner's task might be easier, Ponnuru argues:

In 1995, Republicans had the smallest majority of any Congress since the 1950s. Conservatives were a majority of the majority, but not a majority of the House. Holding the conference together on votes was a constant challenge: Budgets would be too tight for party moderates and too loose for conservative firebrands. Boehner’s task will be easier. Republicans have the largest majority they have had since the 1940s. For the first time in the modern history of conservatism, the House has an outright conservative majority. Michael Barone says that House Republicans are in the sweet spot: They have enough members that Boehner can let some Republicans out of tough votes, but not so many that they have no cohesion.

He also says the GOP has learnt the lessons of 1995/96; will avoid confrontationalism and factionalism; and that Boehner is a less grandiose, explosive figure than Gingrich. Read Ramesh Ponnuru's full piece. Ponnuru shares the optimism of Gary Andres, who on ConservativeHome yesterday, wrote about the incoming Speaker's mastery of policy process.

Jake Sherman and Richard Cohen at Politico, however, worry about the Boehner-Cantor relationship, portraying Boehner as more of a deal-maker and Cantor as more ideological:

In the post-election high, Boehner has kept any simmering tensions with Cantor and his allies from bubbling up. But if you scratch beneath the surface, there are plenty of tension points that could cause problems for the new speaker. Boehner, for example, declared openness in September to backing a middle-ground deal on the expiring tax cuts. After strong objections from Cantor and allies, Boehner quickly disavowed that approach and has since taken a harder line. Cantor has voiced explicit interest in making a quick pivot to 2012 presidential politics. And, in contrast to Boehner’s deal-making interest, Cantor has voiced doubts about finding much middle ground with Obama.

Read their full piece.