Ed Koch Commentary: If There Is a Will, It Can Be Done By Ed Koch

eHezi Archives 3 Comments

Koch_EdwardIrving-standing This past week, the House of Representatives adopted a budget by a vote of 235 to 193 without a single Democrat voting in the affirmative.  According to The New York Times of April 17th, “The Republican plan put forward by Representative Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and adopted by the House on Friday as its policy blueprint for the next decade, contains a substantial dose of deficit reduction but is really a manifesto for limited government.”



The Republican vision of our future is ridiculed by President Barack Obama, whose press secretary Jay Carney said after the vote, “The President agrees with House Republicans that we must reduce our deficit and put our country on a fiscally sound path, but we disagree with their approach.  The House Republican plan places the burden of debt reduction on those who can least afford it, ends Medicare as we know it and doubles health care costs for seniors in order to pay for more than a trillion dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”
 
I believe the Republicans’ desire to reduce the costs of major entitlements impacting on the budget is commendable, but their methodology is condemnable.  That there have to be changes in the programs to make them solvent for many years to come, is agreed to by almost everyone.  The differences in opinion relate to how to accomplish the goals with the least adverse impact on the beneficiaries.  The Republican approach, as I see it, is to simply shift the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security totally from government to beneficiaries.  The Democratic approach, in my judgment, is more balanced and equitable, including expense reduction and revenue increases.
 
Medicare, now financed by a payroll tax and deemed financially sound until 2026, does have to be financially restructured.  The Republicans’ approach is to overhaul the program so that it no longer provides free healthcare coverage to the elderly.  Instead, it would merely pay beneficiaries $6,400 annually (with an escalator that does not use health inflation as its base for increase) to be used to purchase a healthcare insurance policy.  Estimates of the expected actual cost for such a policy a few years hence are double that – perhaps $12,000 or more – and the elderly beneficiaries become responsible for the difference.  Many people believe – certainly the Democratic Party – that this is cruel and a non-starter.  That the Republican plan does not go into effect for a number of years until those now 55 become eligible does not make it more palatable.
 
The Republican approach to Medicaid provides block grants to states, limiting the federal government’s exposure.  There are 50 million Americans without private medical insurance, most of whom receive medical coverage through Medicaid or are non-payers at hospital emergency rooms.  Medicaid coverage, instead of being reduced or eliminated, needs to be expanded and made uniform.  The current system allows each state to make its own rules on the coverage that is available.  According to The Public Policy Institute, New York’s “costs for Medicaid are well over twice the national average.”
 
As we know from the Bush administration, the Republicans want to privatize Social Security.  This could be disastrous, as it would put beneficiaries and their retirement funds at the vagaries of the stock market.  In the upcoming election in 2012, the Republicans have given the Democrats a powerful weapon that will cause Democrats and independents, heretofore dissatisfied with President Obama and the Democratic Congress (now limited to the Senate), to close ranks and rush to the polls to save these programs from the Republican onslaught.
 
The Republicans have removed from budgetary discussion any references to imposing higher taxes on the top two percent of taxpayers who received huge reductions in their personal income tax rates during the Bush administration.  Those reductions were recently foolishly extended by agreement between Republicans and President Obama which the President has now stated he will not renew.
 
I concur with President Obama that two percent of the country representing those making $300,000 or more annually should bear some more of the burden and pain, when we are asking the poor and middle class to agree to a reduction in the benefits currently received by them.
 
The gap between the middle class and the wealthy widens each year.  The wealthy with all of the loopholes created for them by a compliant Congress don’t even pay the IRS rates corresponding to their income brackets.  Warren Buffet has said his actual tax rate because of loopholes is 17.7 percent.  Congressman Paul Ryan has done America a great service by putting in writing what his Republican Party stands for.  He has handed the Democrats the very campaign document they can use to achieve an overwhelming comeback victory in 2012.
 
Let me also suggest some additional revenue enhancements that would lessen the need to reduce funding for programs such as education, transportation and research that President Obama favors, along with the major entitlements of Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. 

The Honorable Edward Irving Koch served New York City as its 105th Mayor from 1978  to  1989.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

eHeziEd Koch Commentary: If There Is a Will, It Can Be Done By Ed Koch

Comments 3

  1. Ed,
    You said “as I see it, is to simply shift the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security totally from government to beneficiaries”
    Wasn’t the cost supposed to be paid by the beneficiaries over their working years? When did it become an unlimited liability of the government? I thought Medicare and Social Security were intended to be insurance like programs.
    One way to cap the cost of the medical programs would be to offer people only what was available to them when they joined the program. If medicine (and the cost) advance why provide even more to people who did not pay for it?
    Are there really 50 million without coverage? That is basically 1 out of 6 people. Is that number right? Sounds high.
    Finally, both Clinton and Bush acknowledged that something needs to be done about Social Security and that they were unable to get it done. Obama kicking the can down the road doesn’t help. At least Paul Ryan is trying to get something done in the here and now.
    I agree that we should get rid of all the deductions that the rich enjoy. But I think we should go further. We should get rid of all of the deductions and all of the subsidies. Can anyone explain to me why we still have tobacco price supports?
    Ed, if you think taxes should be higher there is nothing stopping you from mailing the government a check.

  2. Hey Ed, what happened to the Social Security trust funds that companies and employees paid into?Oh, you took the cash and spent it on pork barrel and Great Society projects to get reelected and gave the fund treasury bonds ,that will have to be redeemed to pay for todays retirees.And where does the money come from to redeem the bonds, why you just add it to the national debt with more debt or raise taxes.Getty Square looks lovely after all that Social security funds were spent on it over and over.And they put Madoff in jail for a Ponzi scheme?The only good Democrat is a defeated Democrat.

  3. Representative Ryan gave us a specific plan,Obama gave us generalities in a pure campaign speech.S&P today, just gave Americans a wake up call to get serious about the over 14 trillion dollar deficit.Ireland,Greece,Portugal and the U.K. didn’t take austerity measures because the people wanted it,they did it to survive financially as nations.Treasury is going to issue a new 15 trillion dollar bill with Obam’s face on it. The only good Democrat is a defeated Democrat.

Leave a Reply

This comment will be displayed anonymously. Your name and email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.