Governor Palin on the Issues: Entitlements Programs

“I think if you want to expand your base, you have to get into policy even though it sounds dull.”
-Charles Krauthammer in regards to Governor Palin's 2012 Presidential potential (see beginning at the 2:18 mark of the following video)

This is the second in a series of posts outlining Governor Palin's stance on policy issues, and this one is dedicated to Charles Krauthammer who apparently hasn't been paying very close attention. Prepare to be bored! You can see the first "On the Issues" post on monetary policy here. This second post will address Governor Palin's stance on entitlement programs.

Governor Palin has recently emphasized the need to reform entitlements. In a recent interview with Time Magazine, she emphasized the need to address entitlements as a means to get America's fiscal house in order:

I'd also look for entitlement reform, as well as a system-wide audit of government spending with a goal to move us toward zero-based budgeting practices and ultimately a balanced budget. We need to start really living within our means. As any mother or father will tell you, you don't spend what you don't have. And if the argument against this is that the government is too big and unruly to even consider such an audit, then I say that that alone is all the proof you need that our government has grown completely out of control and desperately needs to be reined in.

She also expressed strong support for Congressman Ryan's "Roadmap for America" juxtaposed against President Obama's Debt Commission findings in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. She discusses Ryan's solutions for Social Security and Medicare:

In my view, a better plan is the Roadmap for America's Future produced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.). The Roadmap offers a reliable path to long-term solvency for our entitlement programs, and it does so by encouraging personal responsibility and independence.

[...]

On Social Security, as with Medicare, the Roadmap honors our commitments to those who are already receiving benefits by guaranteeing all existing rights to people over the age of 55. Those below that age are offered a choice: They can remain in the traditional government-run system or direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, owned by them, managed by the Social Security Administration and guaranteed by the federal government. Under the Roadmap's proposals, they can pass these savings onto their heirs. The current Medicaid system, the majority of which is paid for by the federal government but administered by the states, would be replaced by a block-grant system that would reward economizing states.

Together these reforms help to secure our entitlement programs for the 21st century. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Roadmap would lead to lower deficits and a much lower federal debt. The CBO estimates that under current spending plans, our federal debt would rise to 87% of GDP by 2020, to 223% by 2040, and to 433% by 2060. Under Rep. Ryan's Roadmap, the CBO estimates that debt would rise much more slowly, peaking at 99% in 2040 and then dropping back to 77% by 2060.

In supporting Congressman Ryan's plan, Governor Palin advocates for reforms in Medicare and Social Security that give individuals greater control over their own money, as working Americans pay social security and medicare taxes, by giving them the option manage their own personal accounts. Governor Palin advocated another means of Medicare reform in the Fall of 2009 during health care reform discussions (emphasis mine):

Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

This reform would give patients greater flexibility and would save American taxpayers money. Michael Cannon, whom Governor Palin referenced, said this regarding Medicare vouchers:

"Vouchers would not make seniors less secure, it would make them more secure," Cannon told ABC News. "Everyone agrees that Medicare cannot go on spending as much money as it does now. The voucher idea allows individual consumers to make their own decisions about what they need and what they don't need."

"Giving Medicare seniors a voucher is the most rational, the most humane way to contain Medicare spending," he added.

She also advocates a plan for Medicaid which incentivizes states to budget more frugally and efficiently as suggested in Ryan's plan . What effects would these reforms have? They would "lead to lower deficits and much lower federal debt". Governor Palin often refers to deficit, out -of-control spending and massive debt as generational theft. Borrowing from future in order to pay for today's entitlement is indeed stealing from our kids and grandkids. It's also the ultimate display of taxation without representation, as future Americans will be paying for past entitlements without having representation to approve this spending.

Governor Palin not only has opinions on entitlement policy; she also has a strong record on dealing efficiently with Medicaid on a state level. Medicaid is a program funded and managed on both a state and federal level. Due to federal restrictions, assessments to see if elderly patients qualified for Medicaid funded home health care assistance had to be taken over by the state as no other contractors could bid. The federal government stopped accepting new patients due to the backlog of individuals to be assessed for assistance. By FY2009, Governor Palin's administration had reduced the backlog of assessments from 30.5% in her predecessor's FY2005 and 4.5% in FY2008 during her administration.

The FY2011 budget is still being discussed in the Senate, but the FY2010 budget included $1.9 trillion dollars in non-discretionary (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) spending, which is equivalent to 55% of the federal budget. Through their taxes, people have paid into Medicare and Social Security over time. It is smart, as Congressman Ryan and Governor Palin have suggested, to allow for greater personal responsibility and flexibility for these programs. Additionally, these reforms would help decrease the national debt to help secure America's future and solvency.

I hope this was dull enough for you, Mr.Krauthammer.

Update: I neglected to previously include that Governor Palin strongly encouraged incoming members of Congress to address entitlement reform in a Facebook post last month:

In order to avert a fiscal disaster, we will also need to check the growth of spending on our entitlement programs. That will be a huge challenge, but it must be confronted head on. We must do it in a humane way that honors the government’s current commitments to our fellow Americans while also keeping faith with future generations. We cannot rob from our children and grandchildren’s tomorrow to pay for our unchecked spending today.

Crossposted here and here.

Charles Krauthammer Re-Writes the Buckley Rule

In his latest column in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer triples down on the idea that it was a "capricious" decision for people like Governor Palin and Senator DeMint to endorse Christine O'Donnell and her victory in Tuesday's primary means that Republicans won't have a chance to take back the Senate in November.

He begins first by contradicting himself (emphasis mine):

Bill Buckley -- no Mike Castle he -- had a rule: Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.

...

Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican. What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That's batting .667. You'd rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate?

Buckley's "rule" is to support to the conservative candidate most likely to win, yet Krauthammer willfully states that Castle isn't even conservative. Castle is an entrenched, establishment liberal Republican. Many seem to emphasize the supposed electability at the expense of political principles. Principles cannot be sacrificed at the expense of theoretical expediency. Surprisingly, Peggy Noonan of all people seems to get it in her recognition of the Tea Party movement that nominated Christine O'Donnell:

So far, the Tea Party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it. This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives dismissed Tea Party-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. The Republican establishment is "the reason we even have the Tea Party movement," shot back columnist and Tea Party enthusiast Andrea Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration that "ran up deficits" and gave us "open borders" and "Medicare Part D and busted budgets."

Returning to the Krauthammer article, to be fair, he too has a good grasp of the "Tea Party" movement, but he doesn't make the connection between what the Tea Party values and how those values influence their vote:

Indeed, it[the Tea Party Movement] is among the most vigorous and salutary grass-roots movements of our time, dedicated to a genuine constitutionalism from which the country has strayed far.

And its complaint that it is often taken for granted by the Republican establishment (interestingly parallel to the often-heard African American community's complaint against the Democratic Party) is not to be dismissed. Tea Partyers should not, as many of them fear, simply be used by the Republican Party as a source of electoral energy while their own candidates are ignored and dismissed. But the question is: Which of their candidates?

He then goes on to essentially argues that it's fine for voters to nominate "Tea Party" candidates, but only in states like Alaska and Kentucky where they are more likely to win, supposedly, than states like Delaware. Should Tea Partyers in more liberal states then not vote their principles and nominate more moderate candidates instead? Is "Buckley rule" applied differently in these states?

Regarding Governor Palin's understanding of the Buckley rule, let's see her apply this to one of her endorsements in a liberal state, shall we? In the California Republican senate primary, Governor Palin endorsed Carly Fiorina over who many people saw as the more conservative, Tea Party candidate, Chuck DeVore. Interestingly, polling just before the primary in June showed that more California Tea Partyers supported Fiorina than DeVore, but I digress. Fiorina was perceived as more electable than DeVore (and as current polling shows is poised to potentially defeat "Ma'am" Boxer). Governor Palin noted this in her endorsement on Facebook (emphasis mine):

Carly has been endorsed by the National Right to Life, the California Pro-Life Council, and the Susan B. Anthony List. She is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-military, and pro-strict border security and against amnesty. She is against Obamacare and will vote to repeal it and prevent the government takeover of private companies and industries. Carly is also a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Like me, she is a member of the NRA, has a 100% NRA rating, and she and her husband are gun owners. She is pro-energy development and believes as I do in an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence. She is against cap and tax. And most importantly, Carly is the only conservative in the race who can beat Barbara Boxer. That’s no RINO. That’s a winner.

Governor Palin understands that if one is to use the Buckley rule, one must embrace both the principles of the candidate and the probability of that candidate's election. As previously mentioned, Fiorina is neck-in-neck with Boxer. O'Donnell, while currently trailing overall, is leading among both Republicans and independents in the most recent poll. For both of these Palin endorsed candidates, their electability and their conservative principles are present.

While Krauthammer has a good grasp of what the Tea Party stands for, he seems to miss the point about how the Tea Party should manifest their principles via their vote. The GOP Establishment was sent a message; it's about conservative principles, not Republican politics.

Related:Mark Levin at his best via the Right Scoop (H/T Stacy):



Crossposted here.

The Seriousness of Governor Palin

Earlier today Governor Palin tweeted the following:

We'll smother under Obama's fantasy world if his agenda to "fundamentally transform America" goes forth. Please read http://bit.ly/blIjjP

The link the Governor references is a piece by Charles Krauthammer in which he warns Republicans to not "underestimate President Obama" on what he desires to achieve in the coming months and years. Krauthammer discusses four major "accomplishments" of President Obama's administration thus far: the health care "reform" bill, the financial "reform" bill, the"stimulus" bill, and massive budgets and subsequent increased deficits. Krauthammer warns of what Obama hopes to accomplish in his "next act", like energy, education, and immigration reforms.

The "achievements" of President Obama's "first act" are things against which Governor Palin has been vocal. Prior to stepping aside from the Alaska governor's office, Governor Palin spoke out against the stimulus bill, even when the Alaska legislature pushed back and eventually overturned her veto. Governor Palin has repeatedly spoken out against the health care "reform" bill. In fact, Governor Palin has been rather prescient about this administration's health care reform intentions regarding rationing of care specifically. Governor Palin wrote in her now famous "death panel" Facebook post:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Time has proven Governor Palin correct. Former Obama economic adviser, Peter Orzsag, admitted that the health care reform bill would favor quality and efficiency of care at the the cost of quantity of care (aka rationing). President Obama's recess appointment for the head of Medicare and Medicaid, Donald Berwick, had high praise for the NHS, the health care system in Britain where rationing occurs, and Berwick has even called for redistribution of wealth via health care.

Governor Palin often speaks against the "immoral" spending of the federal government and the "generational theft" that is occurring with accrued deficits. She recognizes that increased national debt makes America more beholden to foreign countries. Additionally, Governor Palin has called out the Obama administration on the "crony capitalism" that is pervasive in so-called financial reform.

Governor Palin has been a leader in sounding the warning bell against future initiatives that the Obama administration desires to pass in their "second act", such as energy and immigration reforms. Governor Palin has addressed the "snake oil science" of global warming and the negative impact of "cap and tax" on multiple occasions. Governor Palin has spoken for a secured southern border as the first step to true immigration reform.

As Governor Palin warns in her tweet and as she has mentioned on several occasions, President Obama's desire is to fundamentally transform this nation. Despite the fact that staffers for other Republicans have questioned the "seriousness" of Governor Palin and pundits, whom the Governor reads, have asked her to leave the room, Governor Palin has quite seriously and consistently sounded the warning bell to stop the transformation of this nation and to prevent Obama's "fantasy world" from coming to fruition.