The House budget says, "Our budget calls for a bipartisan path forward in addressing the long-term structural problems within Social Security." (Emphasis ours.)
Well, of course it does. No politician in their right mind, not even a Republican one, would want their party associated with such widely unpopular policies. That's why Republicans, as well as Democrats who are economically conservative on this issue, are so fond of the word "bipartisan."
"Bipartisanship" is the Washington equivalent of those Agatha Christie novels where all the suspects commit the murder in the hope than none of them would be found guilty.
They're Ba-a-a-ck ...
Bipartisanship was the watchword of the "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform," commonly known as the "Simpson-Bowles commission." While the commission deadlocked and failed to issue a proposal, the "Simpson-Bowles proposal" released by its co-chairs became the outline of several failed attempts at a "grand bargain."
There appears to be some nostalgia for those talks among Republicans on the Hill. In discussing sequestration (mandatory government spending caps), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said this last week: "I would generate some revenue by capping deductions in the tax code if Democrats help me make some small entitlement changes that buy it back...a mini Simpson-Bowles."
Beware, Democrats. Congressional Dems like Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), now seeking Sen. Barbara Mikulski's Senate seat, are already paying a political price for their past support of Simpson-Bowles. Van Hollen has, in fact, just come out in support of Social Security expansion.
For his part, President Obama appears to be in less of a mood to play along with "grand bargain" talk than in years past. But Social Security remains at great risk when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Democratic president has already displayed a willingness to propose Social Security cuts of his own.
Undoing Medicare
When it comes to Medicare, Senate Republicans were more inclined to punt than their House counterparts. The Senate proposal promises to match the President's projected Medicare savings of more than $400 billion -- but it doesn't say how they plan to do that. Senate Republicans would dismantle a key element of the President's cost containment mechanism. But when it comes to replacing it, they're vague, proposing "congressional committees (that will) work with beneficiaries and other stakeholders on the best ways to save the system and stave off insolvency."
The House proposal repeats the Republicans' extremist plan to dismantle Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a voucher system that would fail to cover the cost of private insurance. Even the GOP admits that, at least tacitly, when they describe it as a "premium support system."
There's also this: "... (T)his system would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare's sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage."
Sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn't it? That's somewhat ironic, since Republican proposals would dismantle the Affordable Care Act without offering a viable replacement.
A Question of Values
We haven't even discussed the jury-rigged numbers yet, or the false fiscal assertions -- and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, is an accountant. Contrary to GOP assertions, these documents wouldn't balance the budget. What they would do is plunge the United States into an austerity-triggered recession reminiscent of Greece.
But for all the deception and evasion which permeates these documents, one thing comes through clearly: the Republicans have no interest in the well-being of seniors or the disabled. Theirs is an anti-tax agenda for the wealthy, and an anti-social contract agenda for everyone else.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
