I’m a fiscal policy wonk, so I freely acknowledge that I sometimes look at the world through green-eyeshade-colored lenses. But I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that expanding entitlements, changing demographics, and increasing dependency are the main long-run threats to the American economy.
And this is why the concerns I had about a Hillary Clinton presidency aren’t that different from the concerns I have about a Donald Trump presidency.
Simply stated, he apparently doesn’t even think there’s a problem that needs to be addressed. Here’s what Trump said in an interview with the Daily Signal.
I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.
Some people have told me not to get too worried about this statement because candidates make so many speeches and give so many interviews that they’re bound to make mistakes and say things they don’t really mean.
I agree that we shouldn’t get too hung up on every slip of the tongue on the campaign trail (notwithstanding this clip, for instance, Obama surely doesn’t think there are 57 states).
But the Trump people actually re-posted the Daily Signal interview on the campaign’s website, which certainly suggests (to use legal terminology) malice and forethought on the issue of entitlements.
That being said, this doesn’t mean Trump is a lost cause and that genuine entitlement reform is an impossibility.
- First, politicians oftentimes say things they don’t mean (remember Obama’s pledge that people could keep their doctors and their health plans if Obamacare was enacted?).
- Second, the plans to fix Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid don’t involve any cuts. Instead, reformers are proposing changes that will slow the growth of outlays.
- Third, if Trump is even slightly serious about pushing through his big tax cut, he’ll need to have some plan to restrain overall spending to make his agenda politically viable.
For what it’s worth, I’m particularly hopeful (or not un-hopeful, to be more accurate) that Trump will be willing to address Medicaid reform, ideally as part of an overall proposal to block-grant all means-tested programs.
One reason for my semi-optimism is that the programs is becoming even more of a mess thanks to Obamacare and plenty of governors and state legislators would gladly accept that kind of reform simply to have more control over state budget matters.
And every serious budget person in Washington understands the program must be reformed because of spiraling costs.
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today about out-of-control Medicaid spending.
One immediate problem is ObamaCare’s expansion of Medicaid, which has seen enrollment at least twice as high as advertised. …Governors claimed not joining would leave “free money” on the table because the feds would pick up 100% of the costs of new beneficiaries. In a new report this week for the Foundation for Government Accountability, Jonathan Ingram and Nicholas Horton tracked down the original enrollment projections by actuaries in 24 states that expanded and have since disclosed at least a year of data on the results. Some 11.5 million people now belong to ObamaCare’s new class of able-bodied enrollees, or 110% higher than the projections. Analysts in California expected only 910,000 people to sign up, but instead 3.84 million have, 322% off the projections. The situation is nearly as dire in New York, where enrollment is 276% higher than expected, and Illinois, which is up 90%. This liberal state triumvirate is particularly notable because they already ran generous welfare states long before ObamaCare.
Of course, the “free money” for states is a fiscal burden for all taxpayers. It’s just that the money from taxpayers gets cycled through Washington before going to state capitals.
But it’s also worth noting that the money soon won’t be “free.”
The state spending share of new Medicaid enrollment will rise to 5% next year and then to 10% by 2020, up from 0% today. The enrollment overruns mean these states will have less to spend than they planned for every other priority, especially the least fortunate.
I suppose this is a good opportunity to recycle my video on Medicaid reform. It was filmed more than five years ago, so some of the numbers are outdated (they’re worse today!). But the policy analysis is still right on point.
Who knows, maybe Trump actually will do the right thing and (in a phrase he took from Reagan) make America great again.
Remember, none of us expected that economic freedom would expand during Bill Clinton’s presidency, so a bit of optimism isn’t totally out-of-bounds.
[…] is about to release the President’s full budget and there already is considerable angst about potential reforms to Medicaid. Here are some excerpts from a report in the Washington […]
[…] full reform of Medicare and Medicaid. Though I suppose some of that can happen (at least Medicaid, hopefully) as part of the regular budget […]
[…] Will there be a plan to address the entitlement crisis? I alternate between complete pessimism and mild optimism. […]
[…] I’m not overflowing with optimism that Trump will tackle the issue, but there is a feasible scenario for him fixing the […]
[…] he is not going to be an obstacle to at least this slice of entitlement reform. I feel good about the soft prediction I made two months […]
[…] he is not going to be an obstacle to at least this slice of entitlement reform. I feel good about the soft prediction I made two months […]
[…] I’m not overflowing with optimism that Trump will tackle the issue, but there is a feasible scenario for him fixing the […]
[…] Mick Mulvaney to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I very much hope Trump seriously addresses the health […]
[…] Mick Mulvaney to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I very much hope Trump seriously addresses the health […]
[…] explained last month that there are three reasons why Trump might push for good policy even though he said “I’m […]
[…] Donald Trump, the Medicaid Monster, and Entitlement “Cuts” […]
[…] will do on government spending. Based on his rhetoric it’s hard to know whether he’ll be a big-spending populist or a hard-nosed […]
[…] do on government spending. Based on his rhetoric it’s hard to know whether he’ll be a big-spending populist or a hard-nosed […]
[…] do on government spending. Based on his rhetoric it’s hard to know whether he’ll be a big-spending populist or a hard-nosed […]
[…] And I’m worried that this kind of bad advice may influence President-Elect Trump, who already has made worrisome comments about spending for infrastructure and entitlements. […]
[…] This week a major conference of Austrians and others in Washington DC and yesterday lunch with Dan Mitchell. […]
[…] Donald Trump, the Medicaid Monster, and Entitlement “Cuts” […]
[…] week a major conference of Austrians and others in Washington DC and yesterday lunch with Dan Mitchell. He is really pleased with the response from Cats when his links are on the site. Then a session […]
[…] perhaps, you understand why I keep arguing in favor of genuine entitlement reform and why I think it’s so critical that Donald Trump reconsider his […]
I can understand providing healthcare for those who have a permanent disability, and limited healthcare to those who are poor. But Medicaid is a bad joke providing transex operations, “mental healthcare” and drug treatments.
Now if a robber holds me up and then goes and places the money in a poor box, have I been robbed?
So what is the difference if the government does the same thing?
Same method, different thief.
End government healthcare.
[…] Donald Trump, the Medicaid Monster, and Entitlement “Cuts” […]
What many of these folks in office NEVER say:
Is HOW to cut the “need” for many of these programs. What we really need, badly, is true economic reform, where true free-market entrepreneurialism can once again flourish. Just like the big problem with “government-managed” health-care: It is always most expensive because it actually encourages monopolies and cartels running the industry. A true free-market solution would encourage entrepreneurialism, and bring about more affordable COMPETITION.
What also needs to happen:
Return to a sound, stable money system. The fiat “FED” currency system of “monetized debt” has always been one of the most destructive forces to any market economy. Our fiat money system, being so inflatable AND unstable, actually encourages reckless spending and spending ourselves deeper into debt (which, for the most part) is unrepayable.
Dr. Ron Paul has consistently nailed it on the head, when it comes to his observations of many of the contributing causes of our market woes.
It does little good to just simply “cut people off” without actually providing an alternative means for some of the neediest people to be able to earn a stable living. Our current global market, together with these one-sided “trade agreements” have done much to adversely alter the way our economy functions: It serves only those who stand to make billions a year, while leaving most in the throes of poverty and destitution.
Our biggest answer to these problems:
Return our nation to the true principles of a “Free, Representative Republic”, where “government” ceases meddling in every single personal affair, and away from “governing” every single choice that should be left to the People. – If there is no victim, there is NO crime! “Government” should only be punishing actual crimes committed, not “preventing” perceived (legislative-fiat) crimes on a mere whim. – This would also be a great cause to CUT TAXES.