First Posted: 09-27-10 02:25 PM | Updated: 09-27-10 02:25 PM
The decision by GOP leadership to largely punt on the question of entitlement reform in their 21-page outline for governance raises an interesting electoral question. If Republicans aren't explicitly calling for Social Security's privatization, can the Democrats realistically campaign as if they are?
The subject was brought up on a conference call with White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer and, not surprisingly, Pfeiffer was quick to answer.
It is in [Rep.] Paul Ryan's plan," he said. "The leadership in Congress, who is seeking to return [to] the majority, is the same leadership who pushed this before. And if the Republicans want to come out and take that off the table, we are certainly open to that. But they have pointedly refused to do that."
Pfeiffer's argument isn't without some basis.
But in terms of a strict political calculus, Pfeiffer ignored a far more potent charge. Even though GOP leadership left out substantive reforms to Social Security in their 'Pledge', some of the top voices in the party assume it as a fait accompli that there would be a push for privatization should Republicans regain congressional power.
As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said on "Fox News Sunday" this past weekend:
There are not gonna be earmarks next year. They can't get all their caucus to agree to it now, but if Republicans take the House, there will be such sentiment of the Tea Party nation that they will not, in my view, do earmarks. They will really cut discretionary spending. Paul Ryan will lay down the budget on April 1st, 2011, as chairman of the Budget Committee, that will address entitlements. They're being reasonable; they're being bold in a reasonable way.
Realistically, Frat Boy Paul Ryan would not have much luck privatizing Social; Security. The Democrats would filibuster in the Senate and the president would veto the Republican bill. There is little public support for changing Social Security.
The subject was brought up on a conference call with White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer and, not surprisingly, Pfeiffer was quick to answer.
It is in [Rep.] Paul Ryan's plan," he said. "The leadership in Congress, who is seeking to return [to] the majority, is the same leadership who pushed this before. And if the Republicans want to come out and take that off the table, we are certainly open to that. But they have pointedly refused to do that."
Pfeiffer's argument isn't without some basis.
But in terms of a strict political calculus, Pfeiffer ignored a far more potent charge. Even though GOP leadership left out substantive reforms to Social Security in their 'Pledge', some of the top voices in the party assume it as a fait accompli that there would be a push for privatization should Republicans regain congressional power.
As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said on "Fox News Sunday" this past weekend:
There are not gonna be earmarks next year. They can't get all their caucus to agree to it now, but if Republicans take the House, there will be such sentiment of the Tea Party nation that they will not, in my view, do earmarks. They will really cut discretionary spending. Paul Ryan will lay down the budget on April 1st, 2011, as chairman of the Budget Committee, that will address entitlements. They're being reasonable; they're being bold in a reasonable way.
Realistically, Frat Boy Paul Ryan would not have much luck privatizing Social; Security. The Democrats would filibuster in the Senate and the president would veto the Republican bill. There is little public support for changing Social Security.
Bush tried to privatize Socail Secruity and fell flat on his ass.
source: Huffington Post
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 8665
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 8665
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment