One of Donald Trump’s most consistent positions throughout the presidential election was that he would not, under any circumstances, cut Medicare and Social Security. Let’s roll the tape:
I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2015
"I am going to save Social Security without any cuts. I know where to get the money from. Nobody else does." - my @SRQRepublicans speech
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2015
He’s even challenged other Republicans on the issue, telling WROK radio in Wisconsin, “Paul [Ryan] wants to knock out Social Security, knock it down, way down. He wants to knock Medicare way down. … I want to keep Social Security intact. … I’m not going to cut it, and I’m not going to raise ages, and I’m not going to do all of the things that they want to do. But they want to really cut it, and they want to cut it very substantially, the Republicans, and I’m not going to do that.”
That was then; this is now. The first big sign that Trump intended to break his promise on Medicare and Social Security was his selection of House budget chair Tom Price, a vocal advocate of privatizing Medicare and means-testing Social Security (that is, reducing benefits for higher-income beneficiaries), as secretary of health and human services. The second was his selection of Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus who has described Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and argued that we must "end Medicare as we know it," as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The clearest signal to date was Mulvaney’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Budget Committee on Tuesday. There were roughly two ways the proceedings could have gone. Mulvaney could’ve used the time to get on message and align himself with the president who nominated him, committed to preserving and protecting Medicare and Social Security, and opposed any cuts to the program.
Instead, he did the opposite. Again and again, senators asked Mulvaney about the contradictions between his own stated views and those of Trump, and each time he stood his ground and reject his president’s statements on entitlements.
When ranking committee member Bernie Sanders pushed Mulvaney on the contradiction between his views and Trump's, Mulvaney replied, "The only thing I know to do is to tell the president the truth. The truth is that if we do not reform these programs — that are so important to your constituents in Vermont, and to mine in South Carolina — I believe in nine or 10 years, the Medicare trust fund is empty. In 17 or 18 years, the Social Security trust fund is empty."
When Lindsey Graham asked if Mulvaney would tell President Trump that "the promise [Trump] made about Medicare and Social Security is going to lead to their demise if you don't change that promise," Mulvaney responded simply, "Yes, sir." When Graham asked if Mulvaney would support looking into increasing the Social Security retirement age, Mulvaney again replied, "Yes." When Graham asked if wealthier seniors should receive government health care subsidies, Mulvaney commented that he thought "Medicare benefits could and should be means-tested."
When Debbie Stabenow asked about Mulvaney’s description of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, Mulvaney refused to backtrack on the comparison: "What I described it as was a plan that takes money from people now in order to give money to people now … I wouldn't read too much into the description of it as a Ponzi scheme. It's simply describing to people how the cash flows."
At one point, Bob Corker expressed bafflement at Trump’s ruling out of entitlement cuts, saying "Mr. Trump did say some things during the campaign that I wish he had not said. They're totally unrealistic and make no sense whatsoever. Is your sense that when you talk with him … do you think he understands that?" Mulvaney replied, "I haven't been quiet and shy since I've been here. I have to imagine the president knew what he was getting when he asked me to fill this role."
Meeting Trump’s fiscal goals will require breaking his Social Security and Medicare promises
Mulvaney’s statements are not those of a budget director committed to keeping his president’s promise to preserve entitlement programs. These are the statements of an arch-conservative House member intent on using a new executive role to back entitlement cutbacks he’s supported for years.
It’s possible that Trump has no intention of going along with his budget director on this, that he’ll force Mulvaney to prepare budgets that completely contradict the sentiments he expressed to the Senate. But early indications are that this is extremely unlikely.
The Hill's Alexander Bolton has reported that Trump's staff began formulating a budget plan in the transition heavily modeled on budgets from the Republican Study Committee, which would cut $8.6 trillion over a decade (or nearly 17 percent of the total budget), and the Heritage Foundation, which would cut $10.5 trillion — or more than 20 percent.
These plans hit Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs like food stamps and Medicaid extremely hard. They basically have to: The plans don’t cut defense spending, and non-defense discretionary programs are less than 13 percent of spending, according to CBO projections, so these budget proposals could totally eliminate every non-defense discretionary program, including the National Institutes of Health and Head Start and the FBI and air traffic controllers and the National Highway System, and would still need to cut mandatory programs to get to 17 to 20 percent cuts.
The Republican Study Committee budget cuts $662 billion from Medicare, $261 billion from Social Security, $1.6 trillion from Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and other health programs, and $2.2 trillion from unspecified other mandatory programs like food stamps and the earned income tax credit. It would privatize Medicare, increase premiums, raise the eligibility age, and add means-testing; it would raise the Social Security retirement age, cut cost of living adjustments by using a different inflation measure, and means-test benefits.
Similarly, the Heritage plan cuts Medicare by 41 percent, Social Security by 8 percent, and Medicaid and other mandatory programs by 47 percent. It boosts the ages for Medicare and Social Security, means-tests them both, privatizes Medicare, boosts Medicare premiums, and transitions Social Security to "a flat, anti-poverty benefit" rather than a pension that reflects the lifetime wages of the people benefiting from it.
Will these cuts make it into Mulvaney’s 2018 budget? We don’t know; Bolton’s reporting is preliminary, and these kinds of changes to hugely popular entitlement programs have a way of dying a dramatic early death when put to the public (see the 2005 Social Security privatization fight).
But we do know this is the kind of thing that Mulvaney, Price, and other crucial members of Trump’s team believe in. It contradicts Trump’s campaign promises, and yet he picked them anyway. We shouldn’t be surprised if the betrayal turns into legislation.