Politics 101: Don't talk about offsets on the campaign trail
-
Diane Lim Rogers Guest blogger
罢丑别听Daily Show segment聽and聽Ruth Marcus鈥� column in today鈥檚 Washington聽emphasize that, gee, the Romney-Ryan Medicare reform approach鈥搉o matter that the GOP team is still trying to define/refine it鈥搃s not that different from 鈥�Obamacare.鈥澛� As Ruth explains:
The Republican National Committee chairman says President Obama has 鈥渂lood on [his] hands鈥� for cutting Medicare. Mitt Romney blasts the president for having 鈥渞obbed鈥� the program of $700 billion.
Vice President Biden accuses Romney and running mate聽Paul Ryan聽of 鈥済utting鈥� Medicare. And, inevitably, President Obama warned that Romney-Ryan would 鈥渆nd Medicare as we know it.鈥�
Aren鈥檛 you glad we鈥檙e having a sober policy discussion about how to rein in entitlement spending?
Such hyperbole was inevitable. The laws of political gravity drag every debate from the lofty realm of ideas to the grungy plain of invective. The more complex and weighty the issue, the more it is at risk of being distilled 鈥斅�诲颈蝉迟辞谤迟别诲听鈥� into a 30-second caricature.
Let鈥檚 pause for a bit of fact-checking.
The cheeky response to the critique of Obama鈥檚 Medicare cuts is that Ryan assumes聽those very cuts聽in his budget 鈥� the one passed by the House and endorsed as 鈥渕arvelous鈥� by Romney. So there are robbers galore and blood to spread around.
The slightly less cheeky response is to say: Aren鈥檛 these the people who have been screaming about Medicare bankrupting the country? Shouldn鈥檛 they be praising cuts, not denouncing them?
The on-the-merits response is that the cuts 鈥� more accurately, reductions in the rate of growth 鈥� involve lower reimbursements to hospitals and nursing homes, reduced payments to insurers, higher premiums for better-off beneficiaries, and savings from reforms such as lower hospital readmissions.
In other words, Grandma might lose her free eyeglasses, but her basic benefits remain untouched.
So what are the candidates blaming each other about?聽 In essence, it鈥檚 the exact same part of their largely-the-same overall proposals:聽the part that saves money.听罢丑别 Democrats demonstrate this by showing Grandma being pushed off a cliff by the Republicans.聽 The Republicans characterize this as the Democrats throwing the $700 billion off the cliff鈥撯�漴obbing鈥� it from the Medicare program (and the very same Grandma!) and 鈥渨asting鈥� that money.
It鈥檚 part 2 of 鈥渄on鈥檛 talk about saving money鈥� lesson on the campaign trail鈥損art 1 being the lesson I鈥檓 afraid Romney got on his tax reform approach once the implied details of a base-broadening offset were spelled out by the Tax Policy Center.聽 My point on that lesson (summarized best in聽my Concord version of the blog post) was that the lesson for Romney聽should聽have been for him to pare back his tax-cutting plans and make any offsets more progressive鈥搑ather than for him to rethink paying for the policy at all.
But any policy talk that honors the inevitable budget constraints鈥搕hat there鈥檚 no such thing as a free tax cut or spending program鈥損aints an easy target for a candidate.聽 The offset or 鈥減ay for鈥� always involves a spending cut or a revenue (tax) increase, at least relative to a not-paid-for baseline, and instead of leading to a healthy debate about the different ways to reform our tax and spending programs in fiscally responsible ways, it leads to attacks on the other side for even suggesting their version of the 鈥渇iscally responsible鈥� part鈥搉o matter how similar it actually is to one鈥檚 own fiscally responsible part!
This is how it鈥檚 going to go through the November election.聽 Expect the candidates to get looser and looser about the 鈥渇iscally responsible鈥� pieces of their policy proposals. Expect them to spell out only the goodies, not how they would pay for the goodies.聽 For voters to be able to see past the rhetoric and understand the real substance of the differences between the two presidential candidates鈥� policy positions, we鈥檙e going to need constant translations from people like Ruth and Jon Stewart, I guess.
