CARROLL: Stumping the hopefuls
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published October 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
State Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, asked a very good question of Colorado's two Senate candidates at Monday's 9News debate. Too bad he didn't get a very good answer.
"As you know," Witwer said, "42 percent of our federal budget goes to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. And with the retirement of the baby boomers that number will only go up. Currently the only plan to pay for that is to add it to debt and it will be on the shoulders of the next generation. One of you two gentlemen will likely serve in the last U.S. Senate that can address this problem before it reaches that kind of crisis . . . And my question to both of you is what specifically would you do to address that looming crisis?"
Republican Bob Schaffer basically sidestepped the question. He never mentioned a single entitlement program by name or a single thing he'd like to change in them. Not their funding sources. Not their eligibility requirements. Not the size or breadth of their benefits. Nada.
Instead, Schaffer talked about the need to "find every strategy we can to grow our economy." His message seemed to be that we could deflect the coming budgetary crisis by supercharging economic growth.
He's right, of course, that boosting economic growth would help tremendously. But growth alone can't realistically be expected to take care of the entitlements deficits. As the Congressional Budget Office pointed out just last month, "Over the past four decades, per-beneficiary costs in the Medicare and Medicaid programs have increased about 2.5 percentage points faster per year than has per capita GDP." Such growth in benefits is ominous enough. Factor in the aging population and you face the prospect of an explosion in federal deficit spending - or else crippling tax hikes - like nothing we've ever experienced.
And the Democrat's response? Mark Udall devoted his answer to extolling the virtues of Social Security and Medicare, citing a few policies to help rein in the federal deficit (such as ending the war in Iraq and adopting a line-item veto) and, finally, advocating a commission of "experts, outside the political process" who would devise a proposal to take to Congress "for an up or down vote."
Like Schaffer, however, Udall refused to give any hint of what he thought should be done.
It is true, by the way, that commissions occasionally can help break a political logjam - the Greenspan Commission in the early 1980s did just that for the Social Security reforms of that era. And Udall naturally wants to look for a way "to strip out the politicking, the demagoguery, the fearmongering" from consideration of reform. Hence the "up or down vote," much like the Base Realignment and Closure process that Congress set up 20 years ago to shut down unneeded military bases. In effect, Congress would outsource the hard choices over entitlements because it no longer trusted itself to make them on its own.
Is Udall right? Have we really come to such a pass? Sadly, you could argue that his and Schaffer's responses are Exhibits A and B for why a commission might actually be needed.
Yet even if Udall is right that we must put our trust in an unelected panel of experts, it still would have been nice to hear his own ideas for what should be done to curb entitlement growth.
It's only the most important domestic spending issue of the next 25 years.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
October 8, 2008
6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSWren writes:
Yes, there is a problem. And not just in this race.
Political parties under current leadership are a problem. I went to the Central Committee meeting of one of the largest, strongest political organizations in the state last night and there was virtually no thoughtful discussion about the Colorado ballot issues. There was a rush to finish the meeting and get to a bar that was TiVoing the debate.
Presidential campaigns are a problem. Everyone complains about how much time and money ($200+ million!) has been spent to get to the debate last night!!!
Local campaigns are a problem, districts are made "safe" when political parties negotiate boundries every ten years and there is virtually no real debate.
So what's the solution?
I'm going to suggest this as a topic at our next Denver Socrates Cafe tomorrow (Thursday, 10/9) evening , "Who do you trust? Media, groups, campaigns, political parties, independent research, and devine revelation: How can voters best form their opinions today on candidates and ballot issues." Join us for good discussion on important topics each week as we seek truth by our own lights. More informationa and RSVP at http://socratescafe.meetup.com/82
October 8, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
social security, medicade, would have been funded had the boomers had children that would be entering the workforce (instead they were "conveniently aborted" , buying houses and keeping our economy strong. The economic inpact of the liberal beliefs is being seen in all sectors from soaring energy prices, a worthless dollar, a collapsing secondary mortgage market, housing prices falling, food prices rising, record inflation and the list goes on...ALL a result of the pillars of liberalism, feminism, environmentalism, pcism, and if it feels good do it ism...check it out, history and recent events prove it beyond challenge. The largest threat to our country is the dems and their liberalism...
October 8, 2008
7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zim writes:
Ghoax,
I want to make sure I have read your post right. You are actually asserting that abortions are the cause of our economic quagmire, including rising oil prices, the mortgage mess, the falling dollar, falling home values, etc.? Fascinating. Truly fascinating. I had not encountered this economic theory before. Dare I ask that you can provide your solid data and research that links your abortion theory to the nation's economic issues? Or are you just an armchair quarterback popping off?
October 8, 2008
9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
Don't be concerned about the babyboomers. Be concerned about amnesty given to 20-30million illegal aliens who are just waiting to cash in to any benefit America has to offer. Give them amnesty and watch them drain it. They have made that promise.
Be prepared to support the old / disabled illegals on Medicaide,Medicare and SS. There's a web site that shows them how to do it.,and they're not timid about it either.
Sorry to be blunt, but it's reality. Wake up America!