Tuesday, 21 October 2014 / TRUTH-OUT.ORG

Republicans Demand Social Security and Medicare Cuts: Is It Reported?

Friday, 25 October 2013 10:52 By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future | Report

2013.10.25.ryan.mainRep. Paul Ryan in Raleigh, NC. (Photo: via Shutterstock)Think the world needs an alternative to corporate media? Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to Truthout and keep independent journalism strong.

Republicans are demanding cuts in Social Security and Medicare if Democrats want to change the terms of the "sequester." I'm sure their Tea Party "base" would be shocked if they understood this. So would most Americans. So is the media giving Americans the information they need in order to make informed decisions?

Yesterday The Hill reported, in "House GOP says sequester is leverage in next budget battle," that House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan is pushing for cuts in Social Security and Medicare:

In a meeting with House conservatives, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), told rank-and-file lawmakers that, as the party's chief budget negotiator, he would push instead [of killing Obamacare] for long-term reforms to entitlement programs in exchange for changes to sequestration spending cuts that Democrats are expected to demand.

[. . .] Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) said that during the GOP meeting, Ryan pointed to sequestration as the party's leverage with Democrats and said the Republican negotiators would not accept revenue increases in exchange.

"We're going to try to push for some substantial reforms on entitlement spending and our backstop is sequestration," Salmon said in describing Ryan's remarks.

Most American's don't read The Hill. And most Americans don't know that "long-term reforms" to "entitlement spending" specifically means cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Reuters is pretty much the only outlet carrying this news, in "U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan wants narrower focus for new budget talks,"

Ryan, who will lead Republicans on the panel, said there was a better chance of finding common ground with Democrats on "smarter" spending cuts to replace the across-the-board reductions to discretionary spending. He said those include reforms to "entitlements," which include the Medicare and Social Security programs for the elderly, Medicaid healthcare for the poor and some farm subsidy programs.

That's about it. So let's go back to a few weeks before The Hill's report, and see if there have been reports in the major media that spell out for the public that, having dropped their demand to get rid of Obamacare, Republicans are demanding cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

On October 8 Ryan laid it out in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, "Paul Ryan: Here's How We Can End This Stalemate," in which he called for cuts in Medicare and Social Security,

To break the deadlock, both sides should agree to common-sense reforms of the country's entitlement programs and tax code.

... We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs.

... mandatory spending—which mostly consists of funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—will grow by $1.6 trillion, or roughly 79%. The 2011 Budget Control Act largely ignored entitlement spending. But that is the nation's biggest challenge.

(Note that later in this op-ed he explains that "reform" of the tax code means "lower the rates.")

Here is NBC News, October 17, actually saying it, in "Fiscal deal opens door to big tax and entitlement changes,"

The deal struck Wednesday in Washington could make it easier for lawmakers to make big changes to tax policy, spending and entitlement programs.

... This blueprint could be the vehicle for major policy changes intended to reduce budget deficits and debt. These might include tax increases and curbs in the entitlement programs such as Medicare.

I can't find much else. Can you? Do people you talk to understand that Republicans are demanding cuts in Social Security and Medicare? How do you think people would react if they understood this?

To many in the voting public the word "entitlements" does not translate to "Social Security and Medicare." Ryan and the Republicans understand this. This is why they talk about "reforming" something that is not clearly understood as Social Security and Medicare.

So again, have any major news outlets explained to the public, using words that the public understands, that the Republican position in the current budget negotiations is a demand to cut Social Security and Medicare?

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson (Redwood City, CA) is a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy. He is also a Senior Fellow with Renew California.

Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.


Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus
GET DAILY TRUTHOUT UPDATES

FOLLOW togtorsstottofb


Republicans Demand Social Security and Medicare Cuts: Is It Reported?

Friday, 25 October 2013 10:52 By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future | Report

2013.10.25.ryan.mainRep. Paul Ryan in Raleigh, NC. (Photo: via Shutterstock)Think the world needs an alternative to corporate media? Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to Truthout and keep independent journalism strong.

Republicans are demanding cuts in Social Security and Medicare if Democrats want to change the terms of the "sequester." I'm sure their Tea Party "base" would be shocked if they understood this. So would most Americans. So is the media giving Americans the information they need in order to make informed decisions?

Yesterday The Hill reported, in "House GOP says sequester is leverage in next budget battle," that House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan is pushing for cuts in Social Security and Medicare:

In a meeting with House conservatives, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), told rank-and-file lawmakers that, as the party's chief budget negotiator, he would push instead [of killing Obamacare] for long-term reforms to entitlement programs in exchange for changes to sequestration spending cuts that Democrats are expected to demand.

[. . .] Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) said that during the GOP meeting, Ryan pointed to sequestration as the party's leverage with Democrats and said the Republican negotiators would not accept revenue increases in exchange.

"We're going to try to push for some substantial reforms on entitlement spending and our backstop is sequestration," Salmon said in describing Ryan's remarks.

Most American's don't read The Hill. And most Americans don't know that "long-term reforms" to "entitlement spending" specifically means cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Reuters is pretty much the only outlet carrying this news, in "U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan wants narrower focus for new budget talks,"

Ryan, who will lead Republicans on the panel, said there was a better chance of finding common ground with Democrats on "smarter" spending cuts to replace the across-the-board reductions to discretionary spending. He said those include reforms to "entitlements," which include the Medicare and Social Security programs for the elderly, Medicaid healthcare for the poor and some farm subsidy programs.

That's about it. So let's go back to a few weeks before The Hill's report, and see if there have been reports in the major media that spell out for the public that, having dropped their demand to get rid of Obamacare, Republicans are demanding cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

On October 8 Ryan laid it out in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, "Paul Ryan: Here's How We Can End This Stalemate," in which he called for cuts in Medicare and Social Security,

To break the deadlock, both sides should agree to common-sense reforms of the country's entitlement programs and tax code.

... We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs.

... mandatory spending—which mostly consists of funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—will grow by $1.6 trillion, or roughly 79%. The 2011 Budget Control Act largely ignored entitlement spending. But that is the nation's biggest challenge.

(Note that later in this op-ed he explains that "reform" of the tax code means "lower the rates.")

Here is NBC News, October 17, actually saying it, in "Fiscal deal opens door to big tax and entitlement changes,"

The deal struck Wednesday in Washington could make it easier for lawmakers to make big changes to tax policy, spending and entitlement programs.

... This blueprint could be the vehicle for major policy changes intended to reduce budget deficits and debt. These might include tax increases and curbs in the entitlement programs such as Medicare.

I can't find much else. Can you? Do people you talk to understand that Republicans are demanding cuts in Social Security and Medicare? How do you think people would react if they understood this?

To many in the voting public the word "entitlements" does not translate to "Social Security and Medicare." Ryan and the Republicans understand this. This is why they talk about "reforming" something that is not clearly understood as Social Security and Medicare.

So again, have any major news outlets explained to the public, using words that the public understands, that the Republican position in the current budget negotiations is a demand to cut Social Security and Medicare?

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson (Redwood City, CA) is a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy. He is also a Senior Fellow with Renew California.

Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.


Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus