Share

Policy: Entitlements

Will pro-amnesty Republicans surrender on the welfare state?

|
Politics,Beltway Confidential,Conn Carroll,Immigration,Republican Party,Entitlements

National Review’s David Foster makes some of the same mistakes The Washington Post did when they editorialized on The Heritage Foundation’s amnesty study, but his conclusion about Schumer-Rubio is spot on:

Instead of fighting it out all summer on the empirical question of the cost of amnesty, as they have been fighting it out on a dozen other issues, pro-amnesty Republicans should admit that their anti-amnesty colleagues raise a legitimate concern, and they should use the debate as an opportunity to strike a compromise: Amend the Gang of Eight bill to include means-testing, market-like competition, and block grants for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, respectively, along with a gradual scaling-back to pre-recession levels for food stamps, unemployment benefits, and the like. Allay the Heritage crowd’s concerns by trading amnesty for significant entitlement reform.

Sounds like a good deal to me. Diana Furchtgott-Roth also has a column out titled, Lets Cut Benefits, Not Immigration. Great idea. Pro-amnesty Republicans should do that. And they have an opportunity to do so tomorrow when he Senate Judiciary Committee begins voting on amendments to Schumer-Rubio.

Will any of them put forward an amendment that reforms entitlements in return for amnesty?

Or will they just give Obama his biggest legislative priority, wrapped in a bow, with absolutely nothing in return?

We’ll start finding out tomorrow.

View article comments Leave a comment