Steny’s Critics Prove Steny’s Point
May 8th, 2009 . by economistmomHouse Majority Leader Steny Hoyer delivered the keynote address at a forum on fiscal responsibility hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center on Wednesday. My favorite part of his speech (emphasis added):
…We will not bring our debt down if we do not reform entitlements and rein in the rapidly rising cost of healthcare. I am glad that we have a President who sees it that way. His talk of a “grand bargain” that encompasses issues from entitlements to healthcare to taxes shows a clear understanding of the tradeoffs and sacrifices that will be necessary. Given the gravity of our situation, we cannot afford to take any options off of the table, either on the spending or the revenue side. Of our entitlement programs, I believe we would have the easiest challenge in reforming Social Security. Here, the options are well and widely understood. We can bring in more revenues. We can restrain the growth of benefits, particularly for higher-income workers, while we strengthen the safety net for lower-income workers. And/or we can raise the retirement age, recognizing that our life expectancy is significantly higher today. What is missing here is not ideas—it is political will. The bipartisan trust we need for compromise has been sorely damaged. And both sides are guilty—Democrats for using Social Security as the “third rail” for political advantage, and Republicans for walking away from the table at the first mention of raising revenues…
And then Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future attacks Steny’s speech with these comments:
Wrong Way Steny Hoyer could become a political legend for going the wrong way on Social Security unless his own teammates tackle him.
Joining conservative hysteria about long-term deficits, Hoyer has decided that the way to solve the deficit problem is to focus on cutting entitlements. And the way to cut entitlements is to start with Social Security, cutting benefits for some, raising the retirement age again. And the way to get this done is to create a bipartisan commission, and fast track whatever it recommends through the Congress, trying to ramrod a vote with no amendments before the public gets wise to the deal…
Look carefully at Hoyer’s complete remarks yourself, and then Borosage’s critique, and I think you’ll see who’s proving whose point.
Steny Hoyer and the blue dogs are demonstrating real leadership here. We can no longer pretend that there are just two versions of budgeting, the Democrats and the Republicans. We must address the tough problems and find areas of compromise. This has been done successfully in the past, perhaps it can be done again this year.
Well said, Diane.
The funny, sad, and unfortunately not surprising thing is that many hyperpartisans on the right will be similarly up in arms at the thought of a such a commission, because they will see it as primarily a means toward tax increases (something I observed, on a small scale, in 2007 when I encouraged the RedState crowd to support the bi-partisan commission then being sought by Senators Gregg and Conrad).
It’s ironic that some folks assume a self-righteous posture while actually — irresponsibly and immorally — obstructing progress toward a realistic solution to this huge, growing problem.
“Wrong Way Borosage” of the “Campaign for America’s Demise” should do a little less unjustified name-calling and a lot more facing reality, growing up and working toward a realistic goal — a compromise solution combining tax increases with broad reductions in projected spending, including in entitlements — that may not feel as warm and fuzzy to him, but would have a real chance at becoming reality and producing the fiscally responsible budgets needed to prevent great hardship in the future.
(As a minor football history nitpick, I also think the incident of the Vikings Jim Marshall running the ball into the wrong end zone deserved at least honorable mention– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IBkQoXNvbA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3T4GZfPIAs — although I understand that Borosage wanted to use a case in which the guy was tackled by his teammates in time).
There are two mistakes in this sentence from Mr. Borosage that would be damning if true, but happen not to be:
“And the way to get this done is to create a bipartisan commission, and fast track whatever it recommends through the Congress, trying to ramrod a vote with no amendments before the public gets wise to the deal…”
First, not only does HR 1557, the SAFE Commission, to which Majority Leader Hoyer refers in his speech allow for 3 amendments (Sec 11/12 below), but it automatically terminates the commission should Congress pass separate legislation on the long-term fiscal gap ahead of the commission’s report (Sec 10).
Second, and more ridiculous, is that claim that the public will somehow not yet be “wise to the deal.” The bill requires the commission engage the public in “at least” 12 public town hall style hearings across the country (Sec 4). Maybe that’s not enough, but it is wrong to claim that this is some secret, closed door process intended to hoodwink an unknowing populace.
SEC. 4. INITIAL TOWN HALL STYLE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
(a) In General- The Commission shall hold at least 1 town hall style public hearing within each Federal reserve district, and shall, to the extent feasible, ensure that there is broad public participation in the hearings.
(b) Hearing Format- During each hearing, the Commission shall present to the public, and generate comments and suggestions regarding, the issues described in section 3, policies designed to address the issues, and tradeoffs between the policies.
SEC. 10. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate the earlier of–
(1) 60 days after submitting its legislative proposal; or
(2) the date on which the Comptroller General of the United States determines and publishes in the Federal Register a statement that new legislation has been enacted that is estimated to reduce the fiscal gap by–
(A) 1 percent of gross domestic product, measured over the 20-year period beginning with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of such legislation; and
(B) 2 percent of gross domestic product, measured over the 50-year period beginning with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of such legislation.
SEC. 11. ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL OF PRESIDENT.
The President may, not later than 90 calendar days after the Commission submits its legislative proposal, submit to Congress an alternative to the legislative proposal submitted by the Commission.
SEC. 12. ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET.
(a) From Committee- The Committee on the Budget of either House may, in consultation with the relevant committees of their respective House and not later than 90 calendar days after the Commission submits its legislative proposal, have published in the Congressional Record an alternative to the legislative proposal submitted by the Commission.
(b) From Ranking Member of the Committee- The ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget of either House may, not later than 90 calendar days after the Commission submits its legislative proposal, have published in the Congressional Record an alternative to the legislative proposal submitted by the Commission.