My opinion of politicians is so low that it is always a surprise when one of them does something to cause a radical downward revision, but Newt Gingrich has achieved this dubious distinction. His shallow attempt to score political points led him to attack House GOPers who are trying to reform Medicare to protect America from becoming a bankrupt, Greek-style welfare state.
Ryan’s proposal, which was passed by the GOP-controlled House in April, would have people 54 and younger choose from a list of coverage options and have Medicare make “premium-support payments” to the plan they chose. “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” Gingrich scoffed in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” House Republicans, including Speaker John A. Boehner, have stood behind Ryan’s plan, which was the subject of fierce debate at town-hall meetings nationwide. Other Republican presidential contenders have praised Ryan’s political courage without going so far as to endorse the budget blueprint.
As I’ve posted before, I don’t think there is such a thing as a perfect (or completely flawed) politician. The real issue is whether a candidate is willing to balance personal ambition with a sufficient level of concern with the future of the nation. Newt Gingrich has failed this simple test.
But I also want to take this opportunity to raise a question about a candidate who seems to be on the right track, but has a very worrisome blemish on his record. I’ve already said nice things about Herman Cain, but someone needs to ask him whether he still thinks TARP was a good idea, as he wrote back in 2008.
Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem. But the mainstream media and the free market purists want you to believe that this is the end of capitalism as we know it. …These actions by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank and the actions by the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are all intended to help solve an unprecedented financial crisis.
I’m not implying that this is a kiss-of-death revelation for Cain. Many people thought we had to recapitalize the banking system, but didn’t realize there was an alternative that didn’t involve bailing out well-connected shareholders, bondholders, and managers.
And just as Gov. Pawlenty has recanted on his support for cap-n-trade legislation, the real issue is whether Cain has the maturity to admit a mistake and explain how he made an error on TARP.
Dan – I understand your concerns with a govt program such as Medicare. But I am curious what your solution is for getting healthcare for seniors.
I just don’t see why any for-profit insurance company would cover seniors, unless it was for an astronomical amount of money. Before my mom qualified for Medicare, she was paying a really high percentage of her income to health insurance. She has a good amount of money so it worked out for her, but I can’t imagine those with lower incomes could have afforded her health care premiums.
Have you done a column on this? Or would you please?
Thanks
[…] Medicare reform is included in the bold budget approved by House Republicans, but also because Newt Gingrich inexplicably has decided to echo White House talking points by attacking Congressman Ryan’s voucher […]
[…] Daniel Mitchell points out something that could potentially be a spot on Herman Cain’s “record.” A column Cain wrote in 2008: Earth to taxpayers! Owning stocks in banks is not nationalization of the banking industry. It’s trying to solve a problem. […]
[…] Medicare reform is included in the bold budget approved by House Republicans, but also because Newt Gingrich inexplicably has decided to echo White House talking points by attacking Congressman Ryan’s voucher […]
[…] Medicare reform is included in the bold budget approved by House Republicans, but also because Newt Gingrich inexplicably has decided to echo White House talking points by attacking Congressman Ryan’s voucher […]
[…] Newt Gingrich Is Reprehensible…and Herman Cain Has a TARP Problem … […]
Tarps are good for covering boats, not holders of financial instruments!
The real problem with health care is that the political debate has a hidden assumption. Every health care proposal begins with the assumption that the individual cannot pay for a doctor. The issue is not how to provide care, or how to make care affordable, but instead how to provide health care coverage, which generally means some government or insurance plan to pay medical bills.
The free market has been able to keep health care costs down where it is allowed to work. Medical procedures which aren’t typically covered by insurance (e.g. Lasik surgery and cosmetic services) have become more affordable over the years, with prices fairly constant or declining dramatically. Common generic drugs are now very cheap as most pharmacies have adopted $4 or $10 cash prescriptions for a wide variety of low cost drugs. These prices are often lower than insurance companies pay. Clinics have started opening in drug or discount stores providing low cost urgent and routine care.
Contrast the rest of the medical profession, where prices are increasing much faster than inflation, cash customers pay higher prices than insurance reimbursement (in general, the more it costs a doctor to be paid, the lower the payment), and “cost control” is via a host of restrictions, rules, approval processes, etc.
I doubt that we’ll see the new health care law repealed. There may be some tweaking, but health care will be universal, low out-of-pocket cost, centralized, and full of rules. Once this system comes into play, I expect that the current low cost portions of the medical profession (as I outlined above) will see very high inflation as they catch up with the price level of the current insured portion of the industry.
Gingrich and Cain are two different cases. Gingrich is waffling and all over the map. Cain has been consistent (so far anyway) on what he believes about Tarp – but he’s not a waffler. If that remains the case, then so be it. We can then decide if we want a perfect candidate or if a mere good will suffice.
Dan,
I think it might be time to do another post on why Mitch Daniels would be a bad president. There’s a lot of media attention on him. You have posts on him on various issues but a comprehensive one would help including VAT problem and expanded Medicaid.
[…] Dan Mitchell post led me to this one, where I learned: I’ve already said nice things about Herman Cain, but someone needs to ask him […]
[…] good people at Reason have a very interesting quiz, featuring anonymous quotes from the various candidates on nine different […]
[…] And since I’ve written about the shortcomings of Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney, I need to say something about Rick […]