SANBORNVILLE, N.H. — Jeb Bush assailed Democrats in a Thursday interview with the Washington Examiner for pursuing domestic policies that amount to a war on the young.
The former Florida governor’s policy-focused presidential campaign has been emphasizing the need to reform the nation’s entitlement system for future generations.
Following a campaign stop at the Miss Wakefield Diner, the Examiner spoke with Bush about policy, specifically asking about whether the way that President Obama’s healthcare law shifts costs from older individuals to younger ones and the fact that Democrats are reluctant to reform the nation’s troubled entitlement programs meant that there was a kind of war on the young.
“Yes, there is,” Bush said. “It’s a great point and I think there is and we’ve got to go out and make the case that solving this problem is probably the single biggest thing that we can do to make sure the next generation isn’t saddled with all of our contingent liabilities on their backs, plus their own debt that they’ve created because we haven’t reformed the higher education system as well.”
“Under Obamacare, they’re mandated to show up for something they don’t want to do,” he added. “It’s a pretty bad deal. Plus, an anemic economic recovery that basically makes the first rung of the ladder higher and higher and higher where job growth has been pathetic for the next generation of people trying to get jobs. So I think we’ve got an opportunity here.”
Bush, who has been faltering in polls in a media environment dominated by Donald Trump, has struggled to turn people’s attention toward policy.
“If you’re looking for an angry agitator, I’m not your guy,” Bush said Thursday during a townhall meeting at a senior center in North Conway, N.H. “If you’re looking for a big personality on the stage that is all about me, put me off your list. But if you’re looking for somebody who has a servant’s heart, who will work with passion and conviction each and everyday to fix these complex things, I hope that you’ll consider my candidacy.”
During the question and answer session, one voter asked if Bush would means test Social Security. “Yes,” Bush said, and he described his plan for future retirees that would gradually raise the retirement age and have the checks of seniors grow at a slower rate.
He boasted to the audience that he had released “the most comprehensive plans of any campaign — for which I’m proud. That’s just kind of my nature. I’m a bit wonky and my nourishment comes from meeting people that I really respect and forging plans that I want to implement.”
The problem is, how does Bush break through talking about policy when elections inevitably focus on personalities?
“I’ve got a very dynamic personality,” he joked when the Examiner pressed him on this point, stretching out his hands.
“It’s talking about leadership. Who’s the leader? Is it all about me me me? Or is about someone that has proven leadership skills that can take a complex problem, put a practical set of solutions grounded in conservative philosophy and go and execute man, and just stick with it? What do you want?”
As he said the word “execute,” he slapped his fist against his hand.
Bush’s proposed reforms to Social Security and healthcare depart from those pushed by his brother, President George W. Bush, in two important ways.
Jeb’s Social Security proposal is primarily focused on the finances of the program and would not fundamentally transform it, while his brother proposed allowing workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.
His healthcare reform would provide individuals with refundable tax credits to use toward the purchase of health insurance rather than the standard deduction based approach pursued by his brother. This is significant, because the credits are given to individuals even if they don’t have much of a tax burden. That means covering more people relative to a deduction, but it also means more government spending.
Does the fact that Jeb’s plans have made these modifications mean that after the Obama era, the political window for conservative reform has shifted from where it was a decade ago?
“I think the premise of your question is correct,” he said. “Having an option for a private savings part of Social Security reform made sense 10 years ago. But that window has closed in terms of the actuarial deficits that Social Security now has. So our proposal reflects that reality. It’s a good reminder that 2017 or 2020 is very different than 2000 or 2004. The world’s changed. I mean, George proposed this in 2003 I think.”
Asked to respond to the point that personal accounts wouldn’t create a deficit over time because future retirees would be less dependent on the system, Bush said, “That’s probably an interesting point. But to begin this process we’ve got to start now, or the power of compounding will overwhelm it. It will be dramatic cuts in spending by law. I viewed this as a set of possibilities. I think of this a conservative alternative, but it’s also practical.”
Bush also said that when it came to replacing Obamacare, tax credits were preferable to the deduction because the broader coverage would make them more politically feasible now that many individuals have obtained insurance through the law.
“[A deduction] is harder to administer and I think it’s a more powerful case politically to say that you’re not going to cut millions of people off of their insurance,” Bush said. “This will allow for a transition to allow people to maintain their insurance. All of the benefits that would be similar to a deduction plan as it relates to health savings accounts, having fewer mandates — all those things would exist whether you use a credit or deduction. It’s the way you’re going to lower costs.”
