Thread: Paul Ryan's GOP Suicide Mission

I met Paul Ryan with our own local Congressman in 2010 and first learned that his ace-in-the-hole was entitlement reform. I gave him an article on the SSI program that benefits foreign citizens. There was also a series in the Boston Globe on how SSI has turned into a new welfare program. Right now it is not a sizable program but is slated to expand in who it covers. It was partly reformed in 1996 requiring immigrant recipients to have longer status in the US.

But what if Ryan decides that Social Security and Medicare need to be changed? Commonly called the Third Rail of Politics, this would likely anger some of the staunchest GOP supporters. And given the precarious balance that the GOP holds, enough angry voters in swing states could put the GOP into minority status. That would make any GOP President's job hell on earth.

I think there is plenty of waste and corruption in government spending that investing the resources to go after it would yield greater dividends. Many times I have pointed out that the IRS gap is over $400 billion per year. In enacting stricter immigration controls we are in the process of cleaning up a lot of unneeded expenditures. So if the GOP would stay the course it presently has and also go after obvious theft and fraud, it should really be able to put the USA on better financial footing. If Ryan and Co. go after the basic social safety net look out!

It’s Ryan vs. McConnell on entitlement reform

The speaker’s plan to revamp the federal safety net faces stiff resistance from his own party in the Senate.

By SEUNG MIN KIM and RACHAEL BADE
12/27/2017 05:06 AM EST

Speaker Paul Ryan’s dream of overhauling the nation’s entitlement programs in 2018 will soon run into a harsh reality: His own party isn’t on board.
The Wisconsin Republican has detailed an ambitious effort to dramatically reshape Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that the GOP has long targeted as ripe for reforms. But bring it up with key Senate Republicans and House GOP moderates and they blanch — seeing a legislative battle that may not be winnable and that may not be worth it in an election year where control of Congress is up for grabs.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has all but ruled out the idea, saying publicly that he doesn’t expect to see welfare and entitlement changes on the agenda next year, particularly if it's done in a party-line manner.
“The sensitivity of entitlements is such that you almost have to have a bipartisan agreement in order to achieve a result," McConnell told reporters at a news conference last week.

Other key Republicans are clearly loath to turn to such a sharply partisan pursuit after grueling fights over Obamacare and taxes. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a swing vote during the Obamacare repeal fight this summer, quickly changed the subject when asked about Ryan’s entitlement reform push.
“Well, I’d like to see us pivot to infrastructure. We’ve talked it all year, the president talked about it,” Capito said. “I think it could be a bipartisan exercise. I would certainly hope so.”

The clash illustrates the dilemma that congressional GOP leaders face early next year: How to sketch out an election-year agenda that unifies House and Senate Republicans and satisfies the conservative base without further risking their already-imperiled majorities.With Democratic opposition to welfare and entitlement changes all but certain, Republicans would have to use powerful reconciliation procedures that can evade a Senate filibuster. But that would require nearly complete unity among Republicans on a joint House-Senate budget and on what controversial policy modifications to make.

Republicans in both chambers will discuss their 2018 legislative strategy at their annual GOP retreat at The Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, in late January. But Senate GOP leaders are already casting doubt on using reconciliation to target the programs.
“All you have to do is the math,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “Unless it’s bipartisan, then you’re talking about reconciliation which means you have to pass a budget, you have to get reconciliation instructions and you have to get 51 Republicans all to vote for it.”
The No. 2 Senate Republican added: “That’s a pretty steep hill to climb.”

McConnell’s narrow majority has already been burned trying to tackle entitlements. GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaskahelped tank the Obamacare repeal effort because it included massive cuts to Medicaid.And on the cusp of the midterm campaign, other key GOP figures are in a much more bipartisan mood.
“We’re going to have a narrow majority next year,” said Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, about an entitlements fight. “We’re going to have our hands full with nominations and an infrastructure bill and a bipartisan agenda.”

Still, those sentiments are running headfirst into the hopes of House conservatives, not to mention those of the powerful speaker, whose years-long pitch to privatize Medicare has endeared him to the right.

Ryan’s conference bellowed when Congress temporarily raised the debt ceiling in September without any corresponding spending cuts. And conservatives have been pressing Ryan ever since to call up legislation to reduce the biggest drivers of the national debt.


In order to win votes for a budget in late October that paved the way for the tax overhaul, Ryan promised leaders of the conservative Republican Study Committee to vote sometime next year on deficit reduction legislation. Republicans have since then discussed enacting work requirements for food stamps and other programs for the poor, as well as Medicare changes to curb spending.

“We have to address entitlements, otherwise we can’t really get a handle on our future debt,” Ryan said on CBS “This Morning” last week. He also specifically singled out programs for low-income people: “We, right now, are trapping people in poverty. And it’s basically trapping people on welfare programs, which prevents them from hitting their potential and getting them in the workforce.”

But even some of Ryan’s rank-and-file are wary of tackling entitlements. Hillary Clinton carried about two dozen GOP-held swing districts in 2016. And with evidence of a Democratic wave already building, centrist Republicans fear cuts to programs that support the most vulnerable could cost them their seats.

Those same centrists balked last summer when House Budget Committee Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) proposed axing $200 billion from such programs in her fiscal blueprint. Centrists wrote to Ryan opposing those cuts, and the speaker is bound to run into the same resistance next year.In an interview off the House floor, New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance urged GOP leaders to be “cautious” when proceeding to entitlements. He would rather focus on a bipartisan issue like infrastructure that is well received by his constituents.

“There is a safety net that I support,” said the moderate Republican, adding, “I think infrastructure would be a good thing to tackle in the New Year.”
Longtime centrist leader Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who’s retiring at the end of 2018, was more blunt. He said a House vote on entitlement reform would put vulnerable swing-state lawmakers in an even shakier position in the midterm elections. And all for nothing, since it will never pass the Senate, he added.
“The longer I’m here, the more I’m convinced that we don’t do things to help members in swing-state districts. We do things to help people in the really red districts to keep the base pacified,” he said. “That’s not how you hold the majority.”

When asked about entitlement reform, several other House GOP moderates responded that they’d prefer to tackle infrastructure, as did Collins in the Senate.And yet Ryan might still press ahead. The votes are likely there in the House to pass cuts or changes to food stamps, disability insurance, and even Medicare and Social Security, two programs President Donald Trump vowed to leave intact on the campaign trail. And Ryan could try to move entitlement reform through the House to exert pressure on the Senate to take up the issue.

Ryan could also draw on a powerful ally in the White House. While Trump has steered clear of suggesting Congress curb Medicare, he’s spoken in recent weeks about reforming welfare programs.
And there are GOP senators who are fine — or even excited — about taking up an overhaul of entitlement or welfare programs. One is Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees much of the federal safety net.
“I’d love it,” added Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). “That’s a heavy lift, particularly after the tax bill … but we know we’ve got to rein in these programs in order to make them sustainable.”

Republicans could also choose to use their reconciliation powers for other purposes.Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) noted that Republicans may want to use reconciliation to make technical corrections to the GOP’s sweeping tax overhaul that passed just last week; fixes are expected to be required for the tax plan, and reconciliation would avert the need to get buy-in from Democrats on a bill they uniformly opposed.
Another option would be yet another push to dismantle Obamacare. While McConnell has thrown cold water on the idea, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he wants to take another crack at Obamacare and will not vote for a budget that doesn’t include reconciliation instructions for health care.
Still, even Graham acknowledged that “getting the Senate to make any substantial changes to Medicare in a partisan fashion is gonna be a bridge too far.”
Others, simply, aren’t saying much about whether they want to take up a fight on entitlements.

“I have no idea,” said Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, the most vulnerable GOP senator up for reelection next fall, as he breezed into the Senate chamber for the final vote of the year. “Merry Christmas.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ecurity-314766

Many refugees get SSI & Medicaid - central americans too.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The ORR spent nearly a billion dollars in 2013, but a significant share went to help the resettlement of unaccompanied minors and their families from Central America. Expenditures on new refugees and other related groups such as Cuban/Haitian entrants and asylees were $613,963,000 in 2013. Asylees and Cuban/Haitian entrants are essentially eligible for the same programs as refugees. Dividing this amount by the 128,000 individuals that ORR reports are covered by its programs (excluding unaccompanied minors) means that $4,797 was spend per refugee by ORR in 2013.⁵ In general, ORR only provides assistance to local communities, charities, and the refugees themselves in the first year after they arrive in the country or are awarded asylum. After a year, charities and state and local social service agencies are expected to care for them. Refugees and Welfare. Unlike other new legal immigrants, refugees are eligible for all welfare programs upon arrival. Further, there are several short-term programs, such as Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA), for which only refugees and other humanitarian immigrants are eligible. Refugees have the most generous access to welfare programs of any population in the country. The ORR conducts the Annual Survey of Refugees each year and the 2013 survey provides a detailed profile of the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of refugees who entered the country in the prior five years, including use of many of the nation's major welfare programs by sending region. We use information published by ORR on Middle Eastern refugees' welfare use as the basis of our cost estimates.
Welfare Use Rates. The 2013 Annual Survey of Refugees shows the following welfare use rates for Middle Eastern refugee households: 32.1 percent receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 36.7 percent receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), 17.3 percent receive General Assistance, 91.4 percent receive the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also called food stamps), and 18.7 percent live in public housing. The refugee survey also reports that 73.1 percent of individual Middle Eastern refugees are on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance.

https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Res...stern-Refugees

Keep your hands off of Social Security and Medicare. There isn't anything this bunch of idiots can or will do that will help these 2 programs. They are actually 2 of our best programs that run like a fine-oiled machine. Do not mess with them. Leave them alone.

We have 50 million people on food stamps, 75 million on Medicaid, and 60% or more of public school students are on some form of free school lunch. How many of these do you think are poor Americans?

There 4 statistics that every legal American voter needs to have in hand before any talk of entitlement reform. Perhaps Congress already has this information, but if they don't, they need to round it up and round it up fast. These four statistics are:

1. How many actual Americans are on these programs?
2. How many green card, tps, DACA, refugee and visa immigrants are on these programs?
3. How many illegal alien households are on these programs?
4. How many children of 2 and 3 are on these programs?

Based on what I think these statistics will show is that there are millions and millions of immigrant and illegal alien households including their children on these programs. I believe at least 1/3 or more of the beneficiaries of these programs are immigrants and illegal aliens and their children. I also think that at least another 1/3 of the beneficiaries of these programs need these programs because they lost their jobs, their hours and sustainable wages because the immigrants and illegal aliens stole their jobs, took their hours and deflated their wages. Of the remaining 1/3, I believe you'll find that about half of these are temporary beneficiaries, who lose their jobs or business, something bad happens, and they need a safety net for a short period of time. This is a fluid group that comes in and uses for awhile, then gets on their feet again, moves off, and another group comes in for the same reasons. This fluid group is the group that these programs were designed for. The other 1/3 are a mix of generational poverty and senior poverty. This static group is a group that due to decades and generations of unemployment, underemployment or inadequate senior retirement income are permanent long-term users of these programs. For the seniors, there is nothing that can be done or should be done about that. For the generational victims of poverty, the only solution is ending the conditions that caused this generational poverty by creating good jobs and preventing those jobs from being taken by immigrants and illegal aliens.

So what this means to me, if true, and if I'm right about this, which I think I am, is in order to reduce welfare usage in the United States, we must deport illegal aliens and move to a merit-based greatly reduced immigration system just like Trump says he wants. The RAISE ACT is a great start, so until Congress has passed the RAISE ACT and ended the insane practice of granting anchor baby citizenship, I personally don't want to hear a word about "welfare reform" or "entitlement reform".

That said, I have no problem with welfare to work programs, but I thought we did that back during the Clinton Administration. Oh wait, we did! I guess the problem was we sent all the good jobs out of the country under the false banner of "free trade" and opened our borders to 30 million illegal aliens and another 25 million new legal immigrants so oops, golly darn, gee whiz, there wasn't enough "work" to go around, a fact every third grader in this country knew but totally escaped the math skills of the United States Congress and three 2 term Presidents.

Well, we've got US a new President who has the math skills to understand this failed dynamic, has watched this house of horrors develop over decades, couldn't take it any more and ran for office to end this insanity. And he seems to be the only person in DC who understands that to fix the welfare problem, you have to fix the jobs problem, and to fix the jobs problem you have to fix the immigration, trade and tax problems that caused the jobs problem to begin with. We've fixed part of the tax problems, and I feel confident that some more tax fixes are coming soon after the first of the year that will make the individual tax cuts permanent and hopefully repeal the Obamacare tax penalty on employers, immigration fixes are in progress with the RAISE ACT with funding for enforcement gaining steam, and the bad trade deals are in re-negotiations as we speak.

I am very hopeful that this total mess that was conspired by Congress and 3 former 2 term Presidents to turn our nation into a world's largest banana republic and a dependent helpless welfare state will be fixed by a new President named Donald Trump who like many of US, and I think most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, understands that Americans are not in poverty because they like it, they're in poverty because a DC SWAMP deliberately put them there and trapped them in it. Until the jobs are there without foreign competition by illegal aliens and new immigrants, they're stuck there.

So tread carefully, Republicans in Congress wailing for "welfare reform", because the truth about "welfare reform" and why we need it may come back to haunt quite a number of you who refused to stop this immigration crisis, who stood proud for "free trade" that shipped your neighbors jobs out of the country and who let the FairTax sit ignored in a committee for 19 years.

Trump has the right mentality; but I can just see a lot of the old guard Republican ideas coming back. But I think cooler heads will prevail. With low unemployment one would think the Medicaid subsidies would be dropping; however we have a demographic of aging people, so the fringe benefit of that may not be so great, these days. Also if the economy truly improves I would expect a stronger dollar, leading to US wealthy purchasing foreign assets.

There are some Republican senate seats that are in very close races. Arizona and Tennessee in particular. OTOH, they could pick up some. I think they are going to need some super strategists though---Kellyanne has a regular job now.

Yeah, Trump does have the right mentality, yet everyone wants to wail about how "he's learning to legislate", when the truth is, Congress is learning that while many have desires in the right direction, they can't construct and close a deal, Trump can and that's why he spends all that time on the telephone and has all those meetings to show THEM how to legislate, which is nothing more than closing a damn deal. Same thing, and Trump is a Master. All I can say is thank God he's in the White House and on our side.

We've got to start working with US officials in the Trump administration to stop the cultural jihad, or whatever term you want for it, that is gripping liberal cities. As I have posted my state has had a sanctuary law for 30 years but, if enough signatures are collected to get it on the ballot, there is a very good chance it will be overturned. But this is just part of it.

In the last few years numerous movements, some of them involving government actions and others involving high level private organizations have kept pushing the diversity and equity agenda. Needless to say something has to give---and in our overwhelmingly secular state it will be the conservative Christian groups. Many of the latter are well protected, it is the individuals who are vulnerable.

Our city now has an official "Office of Equity and Inclusion" paid for by the taxpayers. It doesn't interfere in private corporate decisions, I don;t think, but it ensures that all city policies are designed to achieve an 'equitable result." Of course we are one of the cities that had large anti Trump protests and labels itself as part of the Resistance. So where is the injustice I have practiced. More often I have been on the receiving end. But as a white Christian male I will have no advocate. I may get some due to my disability condition, maybe; probably nothing I need.
Then I just found this other local organization connected with a prominent local law school: Center for Equity and Inclusion. Being connected with a law school means they are serious; potential lawsuits of course. Or at least they will have their law students take up your case as free practice. But if you are in a disfavored group (i.e. "majority" or supremacist") don't even ask.

Then there are the liberal churches that join in on these projects as well. In this state they are going down through all the history of racial disfavor---never mind that a lot of us arrived later than those things, typically fleeing harsh circumstances as well. Most of the racial animosity was caused by Democrat controlled groups or labor unions anyway.

I recognize that charitable organizations can choose to work with whomever they want. When the government gets involved it is different. I grew up during the Civil Rights era, some of my relatives were missionaries to other cultures. And I know stories that would leave anyone in surprise at how well these mission groups have been received by their host nation: For example: Adoption of a single woman by the village chief (Muslim); Formal recognition for service by the national government (again Muslim). That's the real story. I used to give a ride to a Guatemalan kid who had come, wetback style, to go to a Bible college. He's now in Spain. Our local liberals don't need to correct me about knowing other cultures.

But if we let these organizations keep pushing their demands will become more outrageous. I'm pretty sure the sanctuary law will be overturned by voters. But the governments with their specialized equity and social justice programs are very entrenched with plenty of legal help. I know that it is only the cabinet officials who have been changed in the Trump administration. I am trying to raise with the new Dept. Of Justice some of these concerns, though. I wish I knew who on a lower level to contact. When your state has overwhelmingly liberal politicians, who then appoint the committee members, it is an uphill climb.

I would say that a certain amount of dysfunction has gripped a lot of the federal agencies. This is costing us taxpayers more. Our congress should analyze these dysfunctions as budgetary solutions, not the extreme measure that people like Paul Ryan contemplate. Of course, whether they would do it right is a question. I have a very low opinion of the EEOC, for example. And there are state agencies that are equally skewed.

How can we start effecting change in the federal bureaucracy, at least while Trump is able to appoint personnel? It looks to me like the old guard Republicans have gotten their way. Maybe some of that is good, but I was looking for a more populist direction.

I'm calling around to see if we can get any funds raised. Posted the alipac donation button on my FB page. I think we need to help rattle some cages for William. Can anyone else think of things we can do? Put up the donation page on your own FB page.

I think losing the health care fight in Congress weakened our President. Trump's approvals went from almost 60% after inauguration down to the low 40% after the health care failure and has hovered there ever since, occasionally going up to 46% for a few days, then dropping back down to 41 to 42%. Maybe when people see the truth about the tax cuts that will help his numbers and when those numbers improve, his power will be restored. He gets a lot done in spite of it, but Republicans must understand that support for the President is crucial to his being able to deliver on any matter that requires action by Congress which includes many of our immigration control issues as well as eventual new trade deals. I hope everyone working on our issues of trade and immigration keeps that in mind.

Things are getting better, I can feel it and see it, there was just so much wrong, leaving so much to fix, almost everything across the board has to be redone with only very limited power to make such changes. If anyone can do it, Trump can, and he wants to and will do as much as humanly possible, in my opinion anyway.

Maybe they can get a health care repeal of the employer mandate repealed with a tax bill that makes the tax cuts for individuals permanent. I sure hope so.

Well, a new year is almost upon us, with big plans for 2018. It will be another very exciting year for our country.

Judy you have to think of blowback on what they do. GOP is down to a 51-49 Senate balance, and Dems are targeting AZ and TN. Maybe GOP will pick up seats though. I feel that Americans will be employed, so that should help reduce medicaid dependence. What trump really needs is a Brains Trust---not a lot of political intrigue.

And lets get the word out to others to donate to ALIPAC, so we can keep these discussions going. Although this site is small in comparison with Numbers USA it does allow wide discussion.

I hope we can pick up some seats in both chambers, House and Senate. It would be historical if we do. Most of the time according to the news, a new President loses seats in the first mid-term. Strange, but that's been the pattern. Maybe Trump can break it and gain seats to help him pass his agenda. I'm optimistic! He can still get a lot of stuff done without Congress, but so many of our issues require action by Congress.