Rokita sees ‘morality’ in fiscal dilemma

By BRIAN A. HOWEY

INDIANAPOLIS – When U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita talks about “morality” as it pertains to his job, it isn’t about gay marriage or some of the other social issues that tend to define the term.

It’s all about debt and the viability of future generations to live better than the previous one. There are no congressional districts devoid of grandchildren. He notes that current Medicare recipients will pay an average of 32% of what they’ll take out. “Why do your grandchildren have to pay that 70% for you?” Rokita asked. “What makes that OK?”

The subject came up in the context of the recent fiscal cliff issue. He was specifically asked about how many Republicans talk about the need for spending cuts, when common sense suggests that the answer to U.S. solvency involves spending cuts, tax hikes or, better yet, reform of the tax code.

“I want to make sure the folks understand the morality of the decision,” he said of his vote against the fiscal cliff. “I’ve gotten great feedback when I do my town halls and lay out all of the facts and figures. And also the moral arguments. I’ve not met a senior citizen who doesn’t want the next generation to be better off. Everyone. I can tell you right now that it’s a concern. I cannot let the tax comment go without a response. I see a tax increase as part of a solution, but not a mathematical solution. By the way, we’ve already had a tax increase, OK?”

Rokita has taken some arrows for his vote against the fiscal cliff, and a second vote in which he opposed aid to Hurricane Sandy victims in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

“I was for Plan B,” said Rokita during an interview at Howey Politics Indiana, referring to a plan that blew up on House Speaker John Boehner. “So people ask, why were you against the fiscal cliff? Well, Plan B didn’t increase spending. The fiscal cliff delayed the sequester and added $330 billion in new spending over the decade. That’s the opposite of what I came to do. I couldn’t get myself to be for the fiscal cliff. But if tax increases are part of a solution in the sense that it gets those who believe in tax increases and only tax increases give me a start to entitlement reform, if I get entitlement reform so I know this debt situation will be solved down the road, I would be one for tax increases.”

That is rare talk for a Republican member of Congress, who since Vice President George H.W. Bush vowed in 1988 to “read my lips, no new taxes,” has lined up against virtually any tax increase for any reason.

Now the nation is faced with a $16 trillion debt, a budget deficit more than $1 trillion for five consecutive years, and 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring every day.

“We’re in this situation because we failed to solve the problem and the problem is the long term debt trajectory and the spending driving that debt. Until you solve the spending, you’re going to continue to have this,” the sophomore Republican explained. “It’s not that Republicans are trying to be confrontational with the White House, causing this uncertainty. The reason this country is so weak from a fiscal standpoint right now, and the reason that is causing that is because we are spending more than we take in and you can’t take in enough to match the spending.”

Asked about the bipartisan Simpson Bowles Commission plan that President Obama initiated, and then ignored, Rokita observed, “They say they have to be reformed, which is a great start, but they didn’t color in how we start. That’s why you come back to the Ryan budget, which is the only plan out there. I would be willing to raise the eligibility age. The original assumption was we live to age 58 on average.” The average American now lives to age 78.

“I would consider a much more significant means test,” Rokita said. “A lot of people on my side would consider that a tax increase. So be it. Right now there is an annuity. I paid in and I take out. Take Medicare: We’re only paying in an average of 32%.”

While he was one of 150 Republicans to vote against the fiscal cliff plan in the House, he observes that Obama and Democrats have finally achieved a tax hike on the upper 2% of earners. As for Obama, Rokita said, “I think what he’s going to want is more tax increases for spending cuts. I’m not just for spending cuts. I will take them when I can get them. But I’m not for spending increases. But in order to solve the debt problem, if you really want to solve the debt problem, you have to reform, not just cut.”

Asked if his constituents understand that President Obama will be in office for the next four years, Rokita explained, “I think my constituents understand. Who I hope understands is House Republican leadership. For my first years in Congress, we weren’t supposed to do anything too bold for fear of rocking the boat before the election and a chance to get a Republican president. Quite frankly, that time has come and gone. So we have nothing left but to be bold.”

“If he comes back and asks for reform,” Rokita said of Obama, “if he does that, then Todd Rokita doesn’t need to be a congressman anymore.”

As for criticism over his vote against Sandy aid – he and U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman opposed it – Rokita explained in an op-ed article for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, “When Indiana was hit by flooding and tornadoes in 2011 and 2012, I asked the federal government to tap some of that already budgeted – and therefore already prioritized – emergency funding to pay for relief. They did, and Hoosiers were better for it. But that fund ran dry before Hurricane Sandy ever hit land. Does that mean we shouldn’t help our fellow Americans? Of course not. What it means is that we must make room in our national budget for the new situation by reducing spending on what would now be less important priorities, just like we did with the budget and continuing resolutions before the fund ran dry, and just like every family would do in times of emergency. This is far from hypocrisy. It’s the opposite of it.”

Rokita said the Sandy bill “did nothing to prioritize spending in light of Sandy.”

“So I reluctantly voted against it and would do so again under the same circumstances,” he said. “Before voting, I asked the same question to myself that I ask before most all votes: Will this be better for the children of tomorrow? If they have to pay for this borrowed spending because those who want it refuse to pay for it with cuts elsewhere, the obvious answer is ‘no.’ Rather than adding to our debt with new off-budget disaster spending, we should make cuts that equal these additional expenses. There is no shortage of wasteful spending that Congress could cut. For example, an estimated $4.5 billion in improper or illegal food stamp payments by the Department of Agriculture and $3.2 billion in college tax credits doled out by the IRS to prisoners and other ineligible applicants. By simply eliminating improper payments in programs like Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance, we could save more than $100 billion per year, enough to pay for Sandy relief and other disasters that might come.”

On Tuesday, he supported an amendment by U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney which would make across-the-board cuts of 1.63% to all discretionary spending to offset the cost of new spending related to Hurricane Sandy. It was defeated 258-162.

Four chances for reform

In Rokita’s worldview, there are opportunities for President Obama and Congress to get the U.S. fiscal house in order. “I actually see an opportunity,” he said. “Between now and June, there will be four opportunities to address the spending issue. The same arguments we heard from November through New Year’s Day will reappear.

“We’re going to have to face to raise the debt ceiling again by March, maybe by mid March. So that’s one. No. 2, I talked to (House Budget Committee Chairman) Paul Ryan last week, he is committed to writing another budget and he has asked for my help on the Budget Committee. We are committed to do that by April 15, which is the legal deadline. That will all come up again because we are certainly going to address in the narrative of that budget.”

No. 3 will be that the sequester has been delayed because of this fiscal cliff deal, for two months. “So that is going to hit again in March. And by the way, the continuing resolution ends in March. So there’s four times right there where these same issues and the same narrative is going to come into play. The reason I call that an opportunity is it’s daunting work, it’s an opportunity to have this conversation again with the American people. I think every time we do it, since the last debt ceiling vote, and the last two Ryan budgets, we’ve been able to wake people up and say, ‘Look, this is what’s driving the debt.’ Because we want to put more on our social entitlement plate now, and making our kids and grandkids pay for it. How is that moral?”

Some see dollar signs and danger signs. Rokita sees them in the context of morality.