A Political Price to Pay?

Remove all ads!

It didn't get much mainstream news coverage because it happened late in the day on Friday, but the House passed Paul Ryan's Budget proposal. Ryan's budget is all about cutting the US budget - and it certainly does that. However, one of the ways it accomplishes that is by phasing out Medicare, which along with Social Security is considered the third rail of American politics.

It should be pointed out that this vote is largely symbolic. It received nearly unanimous support from House Republicans, while all 189 Democrats in the House voted against it. Still, the Senate is in Democratic hands, and there's no way they're going to pass it, and even if they did, Obama would likely veto it.

So the question here is: why? Why would you vote in support for a bill that has no chance of passing, especially when it's a vote that can be used against you when you run for office next year? I can just see the campaign ads now: Representative (fill in the blank of incumbent Republican) voted to END MEDICARE! Now there was a lot more in the budget than that, but that is how the vote will be framed by Democrats.

And I don't think this is wild speculation on my part. I view it as a near-certainty. With nearly all of the swing districts in the House in Republican hands, to think that these votes won't be used against them is unbelievable. The Democrats are definitely going to be in a position to play offense in the House, and they may get some help from Obama's coattails (which were significant in 2008).

Now, I don't think you'll see the same thing in the Senate, or at least the impact will be less in the 2012 elections, simply because there aren't many incumbent Republicans running in 2012 for the Senate. Of the 33 seats that are scheduled for elections next fall, just 10 have Republican incumbents, and eight of those 10 are considered "safe" seats. That's because 2006 (when those Senators running in 2012 were elected) was a great year for Democrats - they took back both the House and Senate that year - so naturally in 2012 there will be fewer opportunities for them, and they will have to be more defensive there.

Still, people like Medicare - a lot - especially seniors. And seniors vote - a lot more than most other people. The vote seems to be one with high political risk but without the chance of a potential high reward that usually accompanies a high risk. Why do it?

 

Ideological purity often trumps political expediency -- the idea is that in the long run, if you relentlessly stick to your guns, people will respect you and not think you are wishy washy.

I myself don't subscribe to that degree of stubborness, but others do . . .

 

They are banking on the "selfish gene." Now that our society has become pretty much "every man for himself" they are extending Medicare, which seniors do like, for those still 55 and over. In the process they are hoping that since the old, voting seniors will still get their Medicare, they won't mind throwing the next generation under the health care bus. Peronally, I don't think it is going anywhere beyond the House in its current form. This will be a HUGE 2012 campaign issue. Although a lot can happen, don't be surprised to see Obama back for another 4 years.

 

That's a fair point - those already using Medicare won't have their benefits taken away. Here's the thing though - and I admit that the evidence I have is largely anecdotal - it seems to me that the vast majority of people once they hit 65 do use Medicare. From my experience, even people who can afford to pay more for their healthcare, sign up for Medicare and then purchase supplemental healthcare insurance. Unlike Medicaid, in which you necessarily are in a lower income bracket, it would seem that Medicare is used heavily by those in the middle class as well.

As far as Obama in the White House for another 4 years, unless someone emerges in the next few months from the Republican side, I think that is almost assured. I'm not saying it cannot happen - at a comparable point in time during the first Bush Presidency (i.e., the spring of 1991) Bill Clinton hadn't even announced his intention of running yet, so it's not implausible that a serious Republican challenger could not still emerge (19 months is an eternity in politics). But I have a hard time thinking that someone like Mitt Romney can win, and I think his odds are better than a lot of the other Republican hopefuls.

 

Aldeth - You are right, Medicare is an essential program for the middle-class. And it appears that our healtch care could be in danger, in that we may be left at the mercy of insurance companies once we are seniors. We certainly will have to fight it out politically with the corporate Tea Potters to keep our retirement benefits.

 

It seems to be a short-term partisan platform. Such a measure is used imo to solidify the base and gain points with it. It will hurt the politicians' standing with Democrats and (to a degree) independents, of course, but I suppose they decided that many of those won't vote for them anyway. Come next election, they will be trumpeting how they voted to "reform" Medicare and reduce deficits, hoping that most seniors won't care what happens to the younger people when they get old. Essentially, the idea is that the positives outweigh the negatives.