The Politics of Medicare & the Need for Bipartisanship

     

Representative Paul Ryan has been one of the most talked about members of Congress this year due in large part to his budget proposal (“Path to Prosperity”) that includes changes to Medicare. Under current Medicare practice, doctors and hospitals are directly reimbursed by the federal government for their services to Medicare recipients. Meanwhile under Rep. Ryan’s plan, senior citizens will be given a fixed amount they can use to purchase health insurance of their choice. This is an attempt to foster competition between insurance companies hoping that it will lead to higher insurance quality and lower healthcare costs in the long run.

There is no doubt that the politics of this favors Democrats as future retirees around the country are concerned that the Medicare safety net they’ve contributed to for decades will cease to exist if Paul Ryan’s plan becomes law. In recent weeks, Democrats have been very successful in casting his plan as nothing short of an attempt to end Medicare. This strategy paid huge dividends in the May 24 special election in New York where the newly elected Kathy Hochul made Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan a centerpiece of her campaign. Her victory is viewed by Democrats as a blueprint on how to successfully frame this issue to voters. Just a day after the special election, Senate Democrats wasted no time in forcing a vote on Paul Ryan’s budget proposal in an attempt to get Senate Republicans on record as voting to “kill” Medicare. The measure was voted down by a vote of 57-40. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Scott Brown (R-MA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Rand Paul (R-KY) were the only 5 Republicans that voted against it.

While simply bashing Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan may prove to be smart politics for Democrats in the short-term, it doesn’t help produce any solutions that will make Medicare more solvent for future retirees. Rep. Ryan’s plan is not perfect in any way. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of his proposal states that “most beneficiaries who receive premium support payments would pay more for their health care than if they participated in traditional Medicare…” But regardless of anyone’s position on his proposal, Rep. Paul Ryan should be commended for his leadership and political courage in trying to tackle entitlements. To solve the country’s fiscal challenges, what is desperately needed from members of both political parties is a heavy dose of bold leadership and genuine bipartisanship which are currently in short supply in Congress.

Presidential Power and War Powers Act

     In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to the period of an “imperial presidency” that featured the escalation of the Vietnam War and U.S attacks in Cambodia and Laos during the Nixon administration. This law was an attempt by Congress to limit presidential war powers and re-assert its constitutional duty as the only institution with the authority to declare war. This legislation requires the president to consult Congress in “every possible instance” before sending troops into combat, submit a report within 48 hours detailing the circumstances and scope of deployment and limits the deployment of troops to 60 days unless Congress approves the military operation.

     May 20^th marked the 60^th day of American military involvement to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. The president’s failure to end American involvement in Libya before that date reveals the ineffectiveness of the legislation. The reality is that the War Powers Resolution has done very little to reign in presidential power in unilateral deployment of troops and it offers no consequences if the president doesn’t abide by those statutory requirements. In addition, the imposition of the 60 day limit is an unintended concession by Congress that the president has the power to unilaterally deploy troops anywhere in the world. It remains to be seen if Congress will once again try to enforce this law or simply acquiesce to the executive branch. The truth is that the latter is more likely to occur. With such acquiescence, a president’s action is legitimized which in turn sets irrevocable precedents. There is no doubt that trying to reverse or rescind decades of expansion of presidential war powers will be very difficult but it is important for Congress to re-establish its authority and relevance in the foreign policy arena.

Renewed Focus on Immigration Reform

In light of the success of Osama Bin Laden’s capture that yielded an uptick in the President’s job approval rating to 52%, President Obama tries to pivot back to domestic policy by putting immigration reform back on the national agenda. The issue of immigration has always been contentious partly because of ethnocentrism and resentment towards immigrants.  In addition, at a time of economic crisis, there is usually more hostility towards immigrants because of the fear that an influx of immigrants-especially undocumented immigrants- will be an additional strain on an ailing economy that will inhibit job creation and fair market competition. With that in mind, the president tries to tie immigration reform to the economy the same way he tried to tie healthcare reform to the economy. For example, he mentions that comprehensive immigration reform is an economic imperative because it facilitates innovation and job creation which enables American citizens to thrive and compete in a global economy. Also, President Obama threads the needle of emphasizing the need for border security while also calling for comprehensive immigration reform.

However, the timing of this speech is noteworthy. Prior to the death of Osama Bin Laden, Republicans were very successful in controlling the message about the need to curtail federal spending.  Bin Laden’s death momentarily shifted public attention towards the president and his strong leadership in overseeing the successful military operation that led to Osama Bin Laden’s capture. Republicans are once again trying to seize control of the public debate on fiscal issues. Just yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner in a speech to the Economic Club of New York said that Republicans will insist on trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts if they are to vote for an increase in the federal debt limit. Given this upcoming showdown, it is unclear how much political capital President Obama is willing to spend on immigration reform especially when jobs and the economy are still the top issues in the minds of most voters. The president’s actions in the coming months will indicate how much he’s willing to push for a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

First GOP Presidential Debate

Tonight, May 5, 2011, Fox News will host the first GOP Presidential debate in Greensville, South Carolina where most of the high-profile Republican candidates will be absent. There will be no Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachmann or even Donald Trump. Instead, the debate participants will include: Tim Pawlenty, Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and political activist and businessman Herman Cain. In this field, Governor Pawlenty probably has the highest political clout and as a somewhat unknown two-term Governor of Minnesota, this debate provides him with the unique opportunity to gain traction with voters and elevate the status of his candidacy in the absence of other high-profile candidates. But the question is what kind of substantive proposals will the candidates present? On fiscal policy, will they simply endorse Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal (“Path to Prosperity”) or articulate a different vision on how to solve the country’s fiscal challenges? Will they offer a foreign policy vision that is convincing to conservatives and appealing to independents and moderates?  We will all have to stay tuned for those answers.

Bin Laden: What happens Next?

   Osama Bin Laden was undoubtedly the most hunted and perhaps the most hated man in the world since Adolf Hitler. The news of his death led to an outpour of jubilation in the country as many gathered in New York City and Washington, DC chanting “USA! USA!” It is important to emphasize that Osama Bin Laden’s death does not signify an end to terrorism. Al-Qaeda still remains a threat to the United States and the West, and it is not far-fetched to think that Al Qaeda will coalesce around another leader in the future. Equally important, it is very difficult to judge the long-term significance of this successful military operation but it’s worth discussing the potential consequences. How might Al-Qaeda respond? What does this mean for the President? How does it affect our war strategy in the future?

    For President Obama, a bump in his job approval rating is to be expected, and the “soft on terrorism” criticism sometimes levied against him will probably be put to rest. Furthermore, the theme of unity that the President emphasized in his speech may help him in the upcoming budget negotiations. Meanwhile, there are those that claim that the President’s re-election is all but sewn up as a result of Bin Laden’s death. But the reality is that unemployment is still high, gas prices are going up, our national debt is skyrocketing, and there is unrest in the Middle East. These issues will play a big role in the President’s re-election campaign. We should also remember that President George H.W. Bush successfully pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1992 but lost his re-election the following year. Nevertheless, Bin Laden’s death certainly bolsters President Obama’s foreign policy credentials and reveals his seriousness in wanting to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda.”

    Moreover, Bin Laden’s capture is a great victory for the intelligence community for their remarkable persistence in 10 years of intelligence gathering and analysis. This success could potentially lead to a shift away from mass troop deployments to greater reliance on sound/actionable intelligence as a more effective and efficient way of fighting the war on terror. The current counterinsurgency approach in Afghanistan which requires protecting the population, winning them over, and training their army is unsustainable in the long run. It takes a lot of resources to successfully execute such a strategy not to mention the inevitability of mass casualties. So it possible that we’ll begin to see more targeted counterterrorism operations aimed at eliminating terrorist networks through drone attacks and CIA Special Forces. President Obama’s current re-shuffling of his national security team further reveals the possibility of this. He recently announced that current CIA Director Leon Panetta will replace Robert Gates as the new Secretary of Defense while General David Petraeus will replace Leon Panetta as the CIA Director. This is an indication of a strategic fusion of the Defense department and CIA, which will result in a more collaborative effort to fight terrorism.

    Overall, it is too early to determine the consequences of Bin Laden’s death with absolute certainty but it is important to ponder and discuss the different possibilities and their effects on national security.