Next up: entitlements

But does the GOP have the political will?

For years, many lawmakers of both parties have understood that the nation’s long-term fiscal health depends upon entitlement reform. Yet the political will necessary to actually do something has yet to materialize, and demagoguery reigns.

Is there a tiny, tiny chance that things may change? Let’s hope.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid currently absorb nearly 58 percent of federal taxes — a number that is projected to hit 80 percent in 30 years. Doing nothing to curb or reverse that increase is a recipe for budgetary disaster. The Washington Post reported last week, however, that House Speaker Paul Ryan intends to push Republicans to set their sights next year on confronting the issue.

“We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” he said during a talk radio appearance. “Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that’s really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

The speaker isn’t the only Republican calling for action. The Post reports that Sen. Marco Rubio, R-fla., blames Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries as “the driver of our debt,” while Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-utah, takes issue with waste in poverty programs.

“We’re spending ourselves into bankruptcy,” Sen. Hatch says. “Now, let’s just be honest about it: We’re in trouble. This country is in deep debt. You don’t help the poor by not solving the problems of debt, and you don’t help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal programs through.”

While President Donald Trump vowed on the campaign trail not to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, Speaker Ryan says he believes that the president is beginning to see the light about the need to reform Medicare.

“I think the president is understanding that choice and competition works everywhere in health care, especially in Medicare,” he told the Post. “This has been my big thing for many, many years. I think it’s the biggest entitlement we’ve got to reform.”

Democrats will no doubt use this as an excuse to attack the GOP for wanting to leave the elderly and the poor starving and weeping in the streets. That’s why it’s important for Republicans to counter that reality demands action; that leaving entitlements untouched will mean less money for many programs beloved by Democrats; and that any reforms would not affect those who are already retired or nearing retirement age.

The longer both sides ignore the issue, the faster we rush toward the cliff. At least the Republicans say they’ll try.

The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.

The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.

Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor

P.O. Box 70

Las Vegas, NV 89125

Fax 702-383-4676 reality is that high-tax states subsidize low-tax states year after year. High-tax states are generally also high-income states, which means they pay more federal income taxes. And now Republicans want them to pay federal taxes on state taxes.

Mr. Hurd also contends it isn’t fair for those who are mortgage-free to “subsidize” those who pay mortgage interest and take a deduction. Let’s take that further: Why should those of us who don’t have children be forced to “subsidize” those who do in the form of property taxes that are used to fund education?

Reality: If people can’t deduct mortgage interest, they’ll buy fewer homes. Lower demand means falling values. And if childless people don’t have to pay property taxes, education suffers — and society along with it. We pay because, in some direct or indirect way, it will benefit us all. Council under Barack Obama, stated that “Trump’s dangerous tax reforms could kill 10,000 people a year.”

Let’s say, God forbid, Kim Jong-un succeeds in arming his ICBM with a nuclear warhead and lobs it on downtown San Francisco. I’m scratching my head trying to figure how Nancy and Larry would describe that.