Sunday, December 25, 2011

Romney would raise age for Social Security and Medicare in cost-cutting plan

Original Link:

By Donovan Slack

Mitt Romney unveiled a sweeping budget-cutting plan today that would increase the eligibility age for Social Security and cap Medicaid payments to states.
Romney’s plan would also increase the eligibility age for Medicare and allow seniors to choose between the government-sponsored plan and private insurance.

The plan would cut at least $500 billion per year from the federal budget as of 2016 and dramatically shrink the government, pulling back funding from areas that Romney says the nation can no longer afford.

Those areas include Amtrak, which would lose all government subsidies. Romney would also slice $600 million from the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation Fund.

Romney also would cut foreign assistance to countries that are not aiding US interests. An example is China, which Romney said gets $27 million in US aid.

“There are some who are going to argue that fiscal responsibility is heartless and immoral,” he said. “No, what’s heartless is to imperil our children and what’s immoral is to imperil the strength of a nation that was founded under God and preserved by His hand.”

Romney campaign advisers said the pace of changes to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare had yet to be decided but they said current and soon-to-be beneficiaries would not be affected.

The plan resembles one put out earlier this year by Representative Paul Ryan, which also would have capped Medicaid payments to states in block grants. But Ryan’s plan would have privatized Medicare, the federal health care insurance for seniors. Romney’s plan would keep Medicare intact, but allow seniors to choose other, private insurance options.

Romney said his plan will lead to a “simpler, smaller and smarter” federal government.

The former Massachusetts governor and hopeful GOP nominee for the presidency unveiled the fiscal management plan at an event this afternoon organized by a group with ties to another GOP hopeful, businessman Herman Cain.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is investigating its financial dealings with a Wisconsin group formed by Cain campaign adviser Mark Block after reports that money from the foundation may have illegally been funneled to the Cain campaign through the Wisconsin group, called Prosperity USA, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News.

Cain appeared at today’s event and, while not directly addressing the controversy, said he is proud of his association with the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, whose board includes David Koch.

“I am the Koch brothers’ brother from another mother...and proud of it,” he said.

Cain did not mention another controversy that has roiled his campaign in recent days: revelations that he faced allegations of sexual harassment when he worked for the National Restaurant Association. The association paid settlements to at least two women who complained Cain made remarks that made them feel uncomfortable.

In his speech to a packed ballroom at the Washington Convention Center, Cain spent much of the time talking about his now-famous “9-9-9” tax plan, which would eliminate the current tax code and replace it with a flat 9 percent income tax, corporate tax and sales tax.

Here is a fact sheet about Romney’s fiscal plan released today by the Romney campaign:


Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP

Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Romney’s goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:

•Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent

•Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy

•Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts

Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels

Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:

•Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board

•Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels

Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Romney will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

1.The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Can’t Afford, Including:

oRepeal Obamacare — Savings: $95 Billion. President Obama’s costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Romney will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.

oPrivatize Amtrak — Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.

oReduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.

oEliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

oReduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.

2.Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion

oBlock grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.

3. Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job. For instance:

oReduce Waste And Fraud — Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.

oAlign Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.

oRepeal The Davis-Bacon Act — Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.

oReduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a “1-for-2” system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.

oConsolidate agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation.


If pursued with focus and discipline, Romney’s approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations. Romney proposes reforms that will strengthen both Social Security and Medicare, preserving benefits for today’s seniors while putting the program on sound footing for generations of seniors to come.

Social Security: No one at or near the retirement age will see any changes and tax hikes cannot be on the table. Instead, Social Security can be placed on a sustainable trajectory with commonsense reforms:

•Gradually raise the retirement age to reflect increases in longevity

•Slow the growth in benefits for higher-income retirees

Medicare: Medicare should not change for anyone in the program or soon to be in it. Nor should tax hikes be part of the solution. Reforms must honor commitments to our current seniors while giving the next generation a revitalized program that offers the freedom to choose what their coverage under Medicare should look like:

•Give future seniors a choice between traditional Medicare and many other healthcare plans offering at least the same benefits

•Help seniors pay for the option they choose, with a level of support that ensures all can obtain the coverage they need; provide those with lower incomes with more generous assistance

•Allow beneficiaries to keep the savings from less expensive options or choose to pay more for costlier plans

•These reforms will encourage insurers to lower costs and compete on the quality of their offerings

•Gradually raise the retirement age to reflect increases in longevity


Basic Overview:

•Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement

•Medicare is reformed as premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan

•All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today

•If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any left over support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles

•“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option

•Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support

•Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors

What are the immediate effects of this plan?

This plan has no effect on current seniors or those nearing retirement. It will go into effect for younger Americans when they reach retirement in the future.

How is this different from the Ryan Plan?

Romney shares Ryan’s goals and believes his general approach of premium support is the right one. Existing Medicare spending would be repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each future senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan with coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today. Unlike the Ryan Plan, Romney’s approach keeps traditional Medicare available as one of the insurance plans that seniors can choose among. Other details will differ as well.

How high will the premium support be? How quickly will it grow?

Romney continues to work on refining the details of his plan, and he is exploring different options for ensuring that future seniors receive the premium support they need while also ensuring that competitive pressures encourage providers to improve quality and control cost. His goal is for Medicare to offer every senior affordable options that provide coverage and service at least as good as what today’s seniors receive. Lower income seniors in the future will receive the most generous benefits to ensure that they are able to get care every bit as good as that provided in the current Medicare program.

How will the plan impact total Medicare spending?

The total impact on spending will depend on a number of factors, including the rate of premium support increase and the effect of competitive pressure on providers. By replacing the inefficiency of the current system with a competitive, market-oriented system in which every provider – including the government – wants to find the most efficient way to provide high quality care, the plan puts the future of Medicare on a sound footing to meet the needs of future generations.

How will traditional Medicare remain an option?

Traditional Medicare will compete against private plans. It will be operated by the government and funded by premiums, co-pays, and deductibles that are set at the level necessary to cover its costs. The attractiveness of this option to future seniors will depend on how its efficiency and quality compares to that offered by other providers in the marketplace. Future seniors will benefit from the innovation and competition among options.

How will seniors be affected by the costs of different options?

Future seniors will be able to enjoy the savings from selecting less expensive plans, or choose to pay more for costlier options. When the insurance premium costs less than the support provided, the balance will be available in an HSA-like account to pay for other out-of-pocket health expenses.

No comments:

Post a Comment