Democrats and their media allies have predictably seized on the Republican defeat in a special election in upstate New York as evidence of a broader backlash against Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare. But Republicans shouldn’t be goaded into running away from the only serious proposal to tackle the nation’s debt crisis based on the results of a single special election.
In 2009 and 2010, Republicans suffered a string of defeats in special elections, and at the time, the media thought those defeats raised questions about the GOP’s strength going into the midterms. For instance, in October 2009, the Hill ran a story headlined, “Dismal special election record could hamper Republicans’ 2010 comeback.” Of course, Republicans gained 63 House seats in November 2010.
For decades, politicians have been too afraid to propose anything serious to address the nation’s entitlement crisis, because of the assumption that the programs were political third rails. Ryan’s budget, which challenged that premise, was released just last month. When many Americans are being exposed to his arguments for the first time, it’s far too soon to determine that his proposals are politically toxic.
Republicans can still draw lessons from the congressional election, and use it as a chance to explore more effective ways to frame the issue.
As important as it is to educate the public about the dire future that awaits us if we do nothing to rein in these entitlement programs, that won’t be enough. By nature, humans focus on the short term. It’s why people who enjoy excessive eating, drinking and smoking find it so difficult to change their habits, even though they understand the long-term health consequences. And it’s why so many Americans are willing to run up credit card debt in the name of instant gratification.
So if Republicans are going to win this debate, it can’t become a contest between Democrats, saying, “Republicans will destroy Medicare,” and Republicans countering with a 75-year actuarial chart.
Last month, Obama himself acknowledged that the current fiscal path is unsustainable and that we must make changes to the nation’s entitlements. But his answer is to strengthen the rationing panel that was created by his health care law — the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Thus, the GOP argument should be: “Both sides have proposed ways to save money on Medicare. President Obama wants to have 15 Washington bureaucrats decide how best to spend Medicare dollars, but Republicans believe individuals should be given the money directly so they can choose how they want to spend it.”
This would accomplish two things. First, it doesn’t let Democrats get away with pretending that maintaining the current generous Medicare benefits is an option (remember, most of them voted for the IPAB as part of Obamacare). And second, it forces Americans to confront the choices before them now, instead of decades from now, when the solutions will be much more painful.
In a little-noticed development this week, Rep. Allyson Schwartz, a Democrat from a solidly blue Pennsylvania district, called for the repeal of the IPAB. Perhaps she senses the political danger it presents for Democrats.
While there’s no guarantee that Republicans would ultimately win this messaging war, this is nonetheless a war that the GOP has to fight.
If Americans ultimately prefer that the nation become a European-style welfare state after a long battle in which they’ve been given clear alternatives, then there’s not much that anybody can do to stop it. But if the side that’s supposed to stand for limited government principles preemptively surrenders, then the Republican Party will cease to have any reason to exist.
Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
