To: From: Re: Date:

Interested Parties Eddie Vale, Protect Your Care Republicans Reject Reagans Health Care Policies at Reagan Library 9/7/2011

The Republican Presidential candidates are so blinded by Teaparty dogma that President Obama is the evil empire they will stop at nothing to tear down his health care policy -even if it means attacking Reagan in the process. When we make the case that many of President Obamas positions on health care are common sense and bipartisan ideas they have even been supported by Reagan. But in a stark demonstration of how far to the right the Republican Presidential candidates have moved in order to appease the Teaparty they will use this debate, at Reagans own library, to attack policies that Reagan supported. The Individual Responsibility Provision - The Republican Presidential candidates all now claim to oppose the individual responsibility provision thats included in RomneyCare and the Affordable Care Act - but Reagans Solicitor General and Reagans judicial appointee have upheld it as Constitutional. Medicare and Social Security - Reagans record on Medicare and Social Security shows that he actually expanded access to Medicare and Social Security, even raising taxes to do it. Yet all the Republican candidates have supported and praised the Republican budget that ends Medicare and makes deep cuts to Social Security a program that Rick Perry called a failure and a ponzi scheme.

Republican Candidates Position Themselves To The Right Of Reagan On The Individual Responsibility Provision, Medicare and Social Security Reagan Solicitor General & Judicial Appointee Defended The Individual Responsibility Provision As Republican Presidential Contenders Called To Kill It Reagans Solicitor General: The Affordable Care Amendment Is Constitutional
Former Reagan Administration Solicitor General Charles Fried: Im Quite Sure The Health Care Mandate Is Constitutional. Talking Points Memo reported, Testifying before the Senate Judiciary CommitteeRonald Reagan's Solicitor General Charles Fried said that even though he believes that there are lots of problems with the Affordable Care Act, he's quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. [Talking Points Memo, 2/2/11] Former Reagan Administration Solicitor General Charles Fried: If Obamacare Is Unconstitutional, Then So Is Romneycare. According to Talking Points Memo, former Reagan Administration Solicitor General Charles Fried testified that if the Affordable Care Act were found to be unconstitutional, it would necessarily be true that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romneys health care law were unconstitutional. The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against -- the liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too much, Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney. [Talking Points Memo, 2/2/11]

Reagan-Appointed Federal Judge Upheld The Affordable Care Act

Reagan Appointed Federal Court Judge Upheld The Constitutionality Of The Affordable Care Act. A Reagan-appointed federal judge upheld the Affordable Care Act based on a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court upholding the ACA. Last week, Judge David Dowd a Reagan-appointed federal judge in Ohio rejected one of the many meritless cases challenging the Affordable Care Act. [Think Progress, accessed 9/2/11]

Reagan Increased Taxes To Expand Medicare, But The Republican Budget Would Drastically Slash It Reagan Signed A Bill Expanding Medicare Benefits With Tax Increases

Economics Professor David R. Henderson: Reagan Passed The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act Expanding Medicare Benefits And Increasing Taxes To Pay For Them. Naval Postgraduate School Economics Associate Professor David R. Henderson claimed Reagan signed a health care bill in 1988 that expanded Medicare benefits and increased taxes to pay for them. Professor Henderson wrote, A health care bill to expand Medicare and increase taxes to pay for it passes both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate by wide margins and is signed by the PresidentThe bill described above was the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which President Reagan signed into law in June 1988 after it got bipartisan support in the House and Senate. [Health Reform Report, 12/1/10] The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act Signed By Reagan Expanded Benefits Involving Hospital Care, Physician Care And Prescription Drug Coverage. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act signed by Reagan expanded benefits involving hospital care, physician care and prescription drug coverage. An article in Health Affairs read, The three most important new benefits involved hospital care (Medicare Part A), physician care (Part B), and prescription drugs. Beginning in January 1989 (and continuing until repeal in November of that year), beneficiaries were no longer responsible for substantial daily by guest copayments for hospital stays in excess of sixty days, and they had to pay the $560 initial deductible only once in a calendar year. Starting in 1990, a $1,370 annual cap was to be placed on Part B copayments. Congress had planned to phase in prescription drug coverage beginning in January 1991. [Health Affairs, 9, No. 3, Fall 1990] The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act Signed By Reagan Increased Taxes To Pay For Expanded Benefits. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act signed by Reagan increased taxes on Medicare beneficiaries to pay for expanded benefits. An Article in Health Affairs read, In a new precedent, Medicare beneficiaries would have financed the new benefits in their entirety. The controversial supplemental premium actually an additional amount of income tax to be paid by an estimated 40 percent of the elderly would have been the primary funding source. [Health Affairs, 9, No. 3, Fall 1990]

The Republican Budget that the Presidential Candidates Support Would End Medicare as we Know It
Ezra Klein: The Paul Ryan Plan Would Drastically Scale Back Medicare Benefits By Trillions Of Dollars. Ezra Klein wrote that the Paul Ryan Plan would drastically scale back Medicare benefits by trillions of dollars. Klein wrote, The proposal would shift risk from the federal government to seniors themselves. The money seniors would get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or how much health-care they purchase... This proposal would take Medicare from costing an expected 14.3 percent of GDP in 2080 to less than 4 percent. That's trillions of dollars that's not going to health care for seniors. The audacity is breathtaking. [Washington Post, Editorial, 2/1/10]

Reagan Raised Taxes To Expand Social Security, But The Republican Budget Would Make Draconian Cuts

Reagan Expanded Access To Social Security

Reagan Expanded Social Security. The Washington Monthly reported that Reagan vastly expanded Social Security during his presidency. The Washington Monthly wrote, Reagan also vastly expanded one of the largest federal domestic programs, Social Security. [Washington Monthly, January/February 2003] Reagan Expanded Social Security To Include Federal Workers. Reagan expanded Social Security to include federal workers. The Washington Monthly reported that Reagans Social Security expansion brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system. [Washington Monthly, January/February 2003]

Reagan Increased Taxes To Expand Social Security Spending In Major About Face That Flew In The Face Of Conservative Ideology
Reagan Agreed To A $165 Billion Bailout Of Social Security. The Washington Monthly reported that in 1983, Reagan agreed to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security. The Washington Monthly reported, The following year, Reagan made one of the greatest ideological about-faces in the history of the presidency, agreeing to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security. In almost every way, the bailout flew in the face of conservative ideology. [Washington Monthly, January/February 2003] Reagans Social Security Bailout Increased Payroll Taxes On Employees And Employers. Reagans Social Security bailout increased payroll taxes on employees and employers. The Washington Monthly wrote, It dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees and employers. [Washington Monthly, January/February 2003]

Reagan Increased Taxes On Wealthy Social Security Recipients Benefits To Support The Program
Reagan Increased Taxes On Upper-Income Social Security Recipients Benefits To Pay For The Programs Expansion. Reagan increased taxes on upper-income social security recipients benefits to pay for the programs expansion. The Washington Monthly reported that Reagans Social Security bailout brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients. [Washington Monthly, January/February 2003]

The Republican Budget Makes Draconian Cuts To Social Security Benefits

The Paul Ryan Plan Would Make Deep Cuts To Social Security Benefits. According to Social Securitys chief actuary, the Paul Ryan plan would make deep cuts to Social Security benefits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported, Benefit reductions that Rep. Paul Ryans (R-WI) budget plan would generateare very deep. By 2080, the initial benefit of a medium earner (someone earning $43,000 in todays terms) would be 39 percent below the currently scheduled amount, the benefit of a higher earner (earning $69,000) would be 51 percent lower, and the benefit of someone who earns the maximum taxable amount (currently $106,800) would be 58 percent lower. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/21/10]

The Paul Ryan Plan Would Funnel Payroll Tax Increases Into Private Accounts Benefiting High Earners And Endangering Social Security
The Paul Ryan Plan Would Increase Social Security Payroll Taxes To Support Private Accounts That Would Endanger Social Securitys Financial Soundness. The Paul Ryan plan would increase Social Security payroll taxes to support private accounts structured to benefit high earners. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote, Rep. Ryans plan would increase payroll taxes by ending the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insuranceRep. Ryans plan uses up much of these savings by diverting payroll taxes into private accounts that would impair Social Securitys financial soundness and require transfers from the general fund to assure the programs solvency. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/21/10] The Paul Ryan Plan Called For Private Accounts That Would Exclusively Benefit High Earners. The Paul Ryan plan called for private accounts that would exclusively benefit high earners. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote, Although nominally open to all workers, the private accounts would be structured so that only high earners would benefit. The proposal encourages high-wage workers to choose private accounts by making their pay-outs entirely exempt from income taxation, while most of their Social Security benefits would continue to be subject to tax. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/21/10]

Rick Perry Even Called Social Security A Failed Ponzi Scheme

Perry, Echoing Friedman, Called Social Security A Ponzi Scheme. Perry, echoing conservative economist Milton Friedman called Social Security a ponzi scheme. When asked about Social Security at a presidential campaign stop in Iowa this weekend, Perry said: it is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that theyre working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, it is a lie. It is a monstrous lie on this generation. But Perry is right. As Nobel Prize willing economist Milton Friedman once put it, Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme on Earth. [Investors Business Daily Editorials, 8/29/11]
Marc A. Thiessen: Perry Wrote In Fed Up! That Social Security Was A Failure That Had Been Forced On The American People. In an editorial for the Washington Post, Marc A. Thiessen claimed that Perry wrote in his book, Fed Up!, that Social Security was a failure that had been forced on the American people. Thiessen wrote, Romney strategists are quick to note that in his book, Fed Up!, Perry writes that By any measure, Social Security is a failure and calls the program something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now that was created at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government. [Washington Post, Editorial, 8/29/11]