
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) testified today before the House Budget Committee that a proposal to dramatically overhaul entitlement programs is "bold" and signed on as a co-sponsor of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget "roadmap" plan which cuts and then partially privatizes Social Security and creates a voucher system for Medicare.
Inglis said in testimony today that he's "comfortable" with the plan, which he said would help "get our fiscal house in order." The Ryan plan also has new co-sponsors: Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN). (See correction below.)
TPMDC has been tracking where House Republicans stand on the Ryan "roadmap." Yesterday we detailed the lawmakers we've gotten on the record, with nearly a dozen refusing to say where they stand despite repeated requests.
As supporters of the Ryan plan, Inglis, Flake and Paulsen are joining Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and the nine original co-sponsors of the plan.
We also got a rejection of the plan from Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL). A spokesman said Rooney "won't support any plan which makes cuts to Social Security and Medicare," adding, "these programs are crucial to seniors in the 16th district."
It's illustrative of the tough politics of the issue as the White House attempts to tackle entitlement reform. Democrats are putting the squeeze on Republicans in Washington and candidates across the country to see if they'd back the changes. But some Republicans say the GOP should go for it as the "courageous" way to cut the deficit.
Inglis said today the federal debt has reached a crisis and "this is a truly unique moment where the people are rising up and demanding of the Congress that we get the situation under control," according to a transcript of the testimony provided by his office.
"It's a very bold plan and perhaps some on the Democratic side of the aisle that don't like it and think it goes too far. But if that's the case then what we should is expect from those on the other side of the aisle is to give us their ideas and then let's come together and solve this challenge," Inglis said.
"Our challenge here is to have the courage to talk about those things," he said.
Correction: Rep. Erik Paulsen is not a co-sponsor of the Ryan plan. A budget aide told us this morning that Paulsen was accidentally added as a cosponsor to the Ryan budget due to an internal paper error. We've called Paulsen's office several times and have not gotten an answer to whether he supports the measure.
Late Update: A Paulsen spokesman writes in to say the Congressman opposes the Ryan plan.
mans_best_friend
March 3, 2010 6:19 PM
Go for it. Campaign hard on this in November. Please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 3, 2010 6:35 PM
Absolutely - just keep pushing this. I know how much folks hate their Medicare and Social Security. Bah, old people, the disabled and orphans - screw 'em.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 3, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to Powkat
Thirded! (?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Partisancheese
March 3, 2010 7:03 PM
So now we'll have a bunch of old people falling below the poverty line?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richard L. Adlof
March 3, 2010 7:11 PM
Okay . . . But has anyone who we have proof that they can read signed on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frank
March 3, 2010 7:31 PM
Insurance companies will handle medicare and wall street will handle social security,what a great idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
March 3, 2010 11:43 PM in reply to Frank
This is the best line of the day!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 3, 2010 7:41 PM
Oh look. It's Josef Mengele's great great grandson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bpurcell
March 3, 2010 8:07 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Don't stoop to that level. I disagree vehemently with privatization of SS and Medicare, but I don't see Ryan's proposal as "evil". His comments on Hardball today that we can't tax our way out of the future problem is correct. His solution is to take the government out of the picture. As far as I've read and seen though, he's ignored the biggest problem, the inflation of health costs. I haven't seen him able to bend the cost curve so that the Medicare vouchers don't end up being worthless. And HSA's for people living paycheck to paycheck is NOT the answer.
I'm personally convinced we are going to have to combine new tax revenue (raising income cap?), COLA adjustment, and some government control of health costs (public option, national pool, drug cost pool, etc). If we could get the Republicans to agree to these, I would be willing to see a "partial" privatization of SS into government bonds or other safe"r" investments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
March 3, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to bpurcell
"Evil" might indeed be a strong word, but privatized Social Security comes pretty close. It *sounds* harmless, but the problem is that "private accounts" either correspond to a "Ran out of money? Tough shit!" approach or the accounts are a sham. Nobody "owns" what they put into Social Security, because that's the *idea* - you can't outlive the funds.
The Ryan budget not only fails to bend the cost curve, it makes it worse: the Medicare vouchers are indexed, not to the cost of health care, but to a blend of general inflation and health care inflation. In other words, the value of the vouchers *drops* as health care outpaces the growth of the economy.
Furthermore, the plan "achieves" its objective by deliberately tweaking the rules - the CBO scored it assuming existing tax revenue growth despite massive tax cuts included in the program. In short, the plan is a scam designed solely to dismantle major parts of the social safety net while handing out tax cuts to the wealthy, and profits to the investment banks (who do *you* think will manage all that private SS money?) and insurers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 3, 2010 9:25 PM in reply to Matt Jones
I can't help but laugh every time someone claims privatizing is evil. If it is evil explain why the Galveston Plan out performs Social Security?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 3, 2010 9:33 PM in reply to GOPinNYC
Does your trunk reach your ass, as it would seem you get your breathing media from there?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 3, 2010 9:54 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Stop it Marinus! We have to keep telling them what a GOOD idea it is to push this loser crap on toward November. Oh well, his mind is closed, so no harm done anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 3, 2010 9:59 PM in reply to CityGuy
City!!! I dont get trolls...why come here with all that free porn on the web?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 3, 2010 10:09 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I guess it's just like a moth to the flame. They can't resist. But I do get your point. I certainly don't hang out on Redstate!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
beamreach
March 3, 2010 11:32 PM in reply to GOPinNYC
It might in SOME cases do so for a time - the big problem is that it isn't indexed to inflation. The longer you get it , the less you get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
beamreach
March 3, 2010 11:34 PM in reply to GOPinNYC
It might in SOME cases do so for a time - the big problem is that it isn't indexed to inflation. The longer you get it , the less you get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 4, 2010 2:20 AM in reply to GOPinNYC
The Galveston Plan does not out perform Social Security.
Every defense of it is written by the guy who wrote it who was at the time Chief Executive (official title Judge) of the jurisdiction that adopted it. It only worked for people who made the highest salaries of that jurisdiction which of course included the Judge who wrote and promoted it.
Here is a moderately positive account of it which does point out that lower wage workers are fucked and just about eveyone who lives more than a few years from retirement is too, mainly because there is no adjustment for inflation, what you have in your account at retirement is what you get, I guess that is what you get for getting old. Plus its contribution is a bigger percentage of payroll than Social Security and is seemingly uncapped, no wonder higher wage workers get a bigger check, they throw in more money up front. Pull the other finger pal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48305-2005Mar18.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nicnack74
March 4, 2010 8:24 AM in reply to bpurcell
However, this will only artificially inflate the market for those who can afford it (ie. the investor class), and create another bubble. Our parents, grandparents, and we deserve a better future. Morever, given that we've been on the brink of economic collapse, do we need something that is secured gambled away by wall street that has no ethics and is purely driven by greed?
I want no part of it, and I don't want my Social Security anywhere near it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 8:39 AM in reply to bpurcell
I was referring to his blue eyes. Never mentioned the word evil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 4, 2010 9:24 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Good morning Lousgirl18. You're not starting trouble already or are you? Remember, pace yourself. It's a long day. And I'll be nice. And I won't call the President "Barry".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 9:51 AM in reply to Cornelius
Not yet but as you said, the day is young. Lol. So we have a deal!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 4, 2010 10:08 AM in reply to lousgirl84
OK, but if you get out of line you get a Barry spanking
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to Cornelius
Promises, promises (lol)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 4, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Got to leave the house for a while (still considered a "shutin") by my neighbors but if you have a moment go to the Louisiana sheriff militia story comments. Starts slow but will have you in tears after a while. Forgot how enjoyable it is to laugh that much
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to Cornelius
I already checked it out and it was a lot of laughs for sure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
March 4, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to bpurcell
If you like the way credit card companies treat you you'll love Ryan's plan for your retirement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 3, 2010 10:15 PM
No shit...what's the point? It would be like being in a dark room and feeling slimy things walking over your feet. I mean, when I'm not here, it has to be porn...or the next best thing, HuffPost...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 3, 2010 10:17 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Touche! lol
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
March 4, 2010 12:50 AM
Somehow Faux News will convince old people that Ryan's budget is good for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 4, 2010 2:24 AM
The Ryan Roadmap eliminates (but does not allow CBO to score the fiscal effects of) all taxes on dividends, interest, estates and capital gains. Meaning billionaires do not pay any taxes. Ever. On anything. It is the Rethuglican wet dream.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
temptxan
March 4, 2010 9:09 AM
We should jump all over this. It is a plan, a real republican plan to cut medicare and social security. They have few real policy positions in writing, but now we have a republican roadmap that even the teabaggers would hate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
March 4, 2010 9:30 AM
After Enron, Worldcom, Bernie Madoff and others, how can anyone argue that the private sector is a better vehicle for the social safety net? Business is about making profits not providing social services.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 4, 2010 9:36 AM
Need a good laugh? Check our comments on Louisiana sheriff - militia story. You'll need it after the Ryan road map to hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
March 4, 2010 10:03 AM
Is it any wonder that the Rep. from Florida came out against this 'roadmap'? what with all the folks in his state who are ON said Medicare. - that said - gotta ask:
What's the difference between out of pocket dollars for healthcare paid to the insurance companies or the same(or less) out of pocket dollars paid in taxes that would build an infrastructure of healthcare that would actually bring us on par with the rest of the 1st world countries?
If it's simply a matter of choice and the preference that "I can make better purchases of insurance than the government" - okay - but is it actually a better use of my dollars to pay toward the financial windfall/bonuses that the ins. companies are making that afford the CEO's and others the big houses, yachts, fancy cars and vacation trips? or is it a better, more productive, use of my dollars to advocate for something that affords deeper layers of benefit: affording the opportunity for someone else who currently has no/crappy insurance coverage to gain coverage.
and for those of you claiming to be persons of faith - the choices we make shed full light upon where we place our faith - and it's not a choice between trusting in gov. or the ins. industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
consumetheconsumer
March 4, 2010 10:53 AM
So what road does the defense budget take under this roadmap? I'm sure it's not he road less traveled ... you know, the one where we don't spend more than all our supposed enemies combined. Given that FEAR is the GOP's only play, I'm betting it's on the superhighway of budget increases.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?