Follow The Republic:
There are two ways to assess Mitt Romney’s decision to attack traditional Medicare and talk up the merits of partial privatization:
Either he has a lot of guts, or he’s stark-raving nuts.
I had long been under the impression that Romney would spend the campaign inveighing against the economy, hewing to a mantra of jobs-jobs-jobs. But clearly he and his team calculated that the economy was not sufficiently miserable to propel him into office, and that his conservative base was still not sufficiently stoked about him. Enter Paul Ryan, who wants to phase out the Medicare guarantee, move future seniors into a voucher program, and compel many of those seniors to pay more money out of pocket.
The conservative base loves Ryan. The conservative think-tank intelligentsia loves Ryan’s plan to abolish the insurance guarantee. But the GOP ticket is flirting with political suicide.
Last year, after the House passed Ryan’s budget plan, the ABC News-Washington Post poll said that 65 percent opposed the idea of a voucher program, and that opposition swelled to 85 percent when people were told the vouchers wouldn’t cover all medical care.
No wonder a lot of Republicans are terrified. They know from long experience that taking on Medicare is a political loser.
Republicans running for Congress signaled last week that they intended to ignore the Medicare issue and focus solely on the economy. Some are going a step further. Denny Rehberg, the GOP senatorial candidate in Montana, has aired an ad attacking Ryan’s budget plan.
Rehberg had opposed it in the House, and he wanted voters to know. The narrator intones: “Rehberg refused to support a Republican budget plan that could harm the Medicare programs so many of Montana’s seniors rely on.”
This is Montana we’re talking about. Not a hotbed of socialism.
Why would Romney risk alienating seniors? They vote heavily; they’re potentially pivotal in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia; and they were cool to Obama even in 2008. Romney-Ryan is nonetheless bullish on Medicare; it thinks it can neutralize the issue by going on offense and spotlighting the $716 billion that Obama took from Medicare to help fund the health-reform law. This strategy worked in Nevada in September, when a Republican cruised to victory in a special House election after telling senior voters that Obama was cutting their medical care. Which is why Romney surrogate John Sununu went on TV last week to claim that Obama had “gutted Medicare.”
Three problems with that claim:
1. It’s factually incorrect. The health-reform law will slow the rate of growth of payments to Medicare providers by roughly $700 billion over 10 years. Seniors on Medicare will not lose any benefits. In fact, they’ll gain benefits — because, under the reform law, some of those billions are earmarked for seniors’ prescription drugs and various preventive services.
2. It turns out that, in one version of Ryan’s plan, the running mate envisioned taking the same amount of money out of Medicare. Romney has been forced to finesse this inconvenient fact by pledging to put the money back into Medicare. Which kind of muddies his attack line against Obama.
3. Voters may resist the notion that Obama is a threat to Medicare and that Romney is its protector. That notion runs counter to the general perception of the two parties dating back to the dawn of Medicare in 1965. Democrats are widely seen as “the party of government.” In current parlance, that’s their “brand.” In debates over safety-net issues such as Medicare, they tend to have the upper hand.
In other words, Romney has chosen to fight on Democratic turf.
He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Think your friends should see this? Share it with them!
Note: All comments left on our sites are first reviewed by an automated comment moderation system. Your comment may take up to 5 minutes to appear. If for any reason your comment can not be approved you will receive an email from this system with a detailed explanation.
All content copyright ©2013 The Republic, a division of Home News Enterprises unless otherwise noted.