“But out of the gate, Joe, what do you start with? Healthcare?” said Asman.
“Oh, absolutely. Defund it. I mean a repeal would be perfect but obviously that would get vetoed. So defund everything. Get rid of the socialist aspects of government, not just in health care but the other entitlement areas that are driving us into insolvency,” Miller said.
Miller went on to say that Congress should have the “courage to shut down the government,” if necessary, to eliminate government programs.
On anyone’s list, the entitlement programs that could drive the nation to “insolvency” in the decades ahead are topped by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which make up about 40 percent of the federal budget.
Does Miller want to “get rid” of Social Security and Medicare because they are “socialist aspects” of government?
He has made a series of vague statements about the future of Social Security and Medicare, saying that ultimately the government should get out of both, but not yet.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski released a campaign flyer just before the primary that accused Miller of wanting to end Social Security and Medicare.
Miller responded by saying he wants no cuts at all now, but he is “committed to personalizing Social Security accounts for future generations to protect them from the caprice of irresponsible politicians.”
Miller has said he wants an “orderly transition” away from Social Security, to “privatize” or “personalize” it, while not reducing benefits for anyone who is “currently dependent” on the program.
Referring to Social Security, he told the Anchorage Daily News that “I think in the long run the answer is to get the government out of it, to privatize it.”
Regarding Medicare, he also wants an “orderly transition” to get the government out of that program as well because “The government has broken everything that it’s had its finger in.”
What would this mean for people who are not senior citizens and are not “currently dependent” on Social Security?
Miller has not provided details of what exactly he means by privatization, but he says it is not a radical idea.
“It's something that President Bush had proposed,” he said in an interview with ABC and the Washington Post. “Congressman (Paul) Ryan has a plan that we're evaluating. It does have to ultimately be a transition.”
But contrary to Miller’s statement, neither the Bush plan, nor the Ryan plan would get the government “out” of Social Security.
The Bush plan, which was dropped because it had no support from the Republican-controlled Congress five years ago, was to give those under 55 the option of putting one-third of their Social Security taxes into accounts controlled by the government. GOP opposition to the Bush plan was so strong that it was never introduced when Republicans controlled Congress.
It was a hybrid plan, according to the website factcheck.org, under which two-thirds of the money would remain in the traditional system. Democrats are guilty of “misleading labeling,” when they say the Bush plan was for a “privatized” system, factcheck.org says.
The website adds that there is no evidence that Republicans are any more interested in the idea now than they were five years ago. The plan by Ryan has similarities to that put forward by Bush, but has drawn no backing from the GOP leadership.
Ryan’s plan includes reducing benefits, raising taxes and raising the retirement age to improve the finances of Social Security, while offering private accounts as an voluntary option. It would also have a guaranteed benefit.
Still, factcheck.org said that President Barack Obama’s claims that the GOP wants to “privatize” Social Security are “mostly false” because Ryan has little support.
The words “privatize” or “personalize,” when used to describe potential changes to the biggest government entitlement programs, could cover any number of possibilities.
When Miller says the government should get out of Social Security and Medicare, he is going far beyond what Bush proposed and what Ryan is suggesting.
Dermot Cole can be reached at cole@newsminer.com or 459-7530.
Post a Comment