Highlights:
- Kristi Noem voted at least five times to raise the eligibility of Medicare.
- Kristi Noem voted to turn Medicare into a voucher program at least nine times.
- Kristi Noem voted at least twice in support of privatizing Social Security.
- Kristi Noem voted at least four times for massive cuts to Medicare.
- Kristi Noem voted to cut Social Security.
- Kristi Noem supported efforts to means test Medicare.
- Noem voted to means test Medicare.
- Noem said she would be open to cutting Medicare for wealthier individuals.
- Kristi Noem voted against efforts to limit increases in Medicare premiums.
2015: Noem Voted For The FY 2016 Budget Resolution, Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Noem voted for the FY 2016 budget resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, “To reduce the growth rate of Medicare costs in the future […] the budget would also begin raising the age for eligibility so it corresponds with Social Security's age requirement, eventually reaching the age of 67. The current eligibility age for Medicare is 65.” The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
- CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “This change, which is not mentioned in the 73-page booklet on his plan that Chairman Ryan released, would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer coverage and can’t afford insurance into the individual insurance market — where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be very high — leaving them uninsured. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
- Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Health Care Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “[R]aising Medicare’s eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2015: Noem Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution, Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Noem voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, “To reduce the growth rate of Medicare costs in the future […] the budget would also begin raising the age for eligibility so it corresponds with Social Security's age requirement, eventually reaching the age of 67. The current eligibility age for Medicare is 65.” The vote was on adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
¶ 2014: Noem Voted To Raise The Medicare Retirement Age From 65 To 67 Through A Phased-In Approach Starting In 2024 And Completing In 2035
2014: Noem Voted To Raise The Medicare Retirement Age From 65 To 67, As Part Of a Phased-In Approach Starting In 2024 And Completing In 2035. In April 2014, Noem voted for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Starting in 2024, the Ryan budget would raise Medicare’s eligibility age — now 65 — by two months per year until it reaches age 67 in 2035.” The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
- Because Ryan’s Plan Would Also Repeal The ACA, Seniors Aged 65 And 66 Without Employer Coverage Would Face High Premium Costs Due To Their Age – Or Might Be Unable To Obtain Any Insurance Due To A Pre-Existing Condition. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “At the same time, the plan would repeal health reform’s coverage provisions. Consequently, 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would drive 65- and 66-year-olds who don’t have employer-sponsored coverage into an individual insurance market that would be poorly regulated (since the Ryan plan repeals the Affordable Care Act’s insurance reforms) and would charge older individuals extremely high premiums. People of limited means would be affected most harshly because they would not be able to afford private coverage. In addition, 65- and 66-year-olds with a pre-existing medical condition often would not be able to purchase coverage at any price. As a result, many 65- and 66-year-olds would find themselves uninsured.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14]
- Loss Of Relatively Healthy 65- And 66-Year-Olds From Medicare Would Raise Premiums For Remaining Medicare Beneficiaries. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “All remaining Medicare beneficiaries would pay higher premiums because the removal of 65- and 66-year-olds, who are typically healthier than Medicare beneficiaries overall, would leave Medicare beneficiaries costlier to cover, on average.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14]
2012: Noem Voted To Increase The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 By 2034 As Part Of The FY 2013 Ryan Budget. In March 2012, Noem voted to increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67 by 2034, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022. According to the Congressional Research Service, “The budget proposal would gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67. Beginning in 2023, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months each year until it reached 67 in 2034.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 228 to 191. The Senate later rejected a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution. [House Vote 151, 3/16/12; CRS Report #R42441, 3/29/12; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
2011: Noem Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget, Which Raised The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 By 2033. In April 2011, Noem voted for increasing Medicare eligibility to 67 by 2034, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 235 to 193. [House Vote 277, 4/15/11; Congressional Budget Office, 4/5/11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
2017: Noem Voted For The House GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For Turning Medicare Into A “Premium Support” Program. In October 2017, Noem voted for the House GOP FY 2018 budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would provide for $3.2 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018, not including off-budget accounts. It would assume $1.22 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2018. It would assume the repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul law. It also would propose reducing spending on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and changing programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as food stamps). It would call for restructuring Medicare into a ‘premium support’ system beginning in 2024. I would also require the House Ways and Means Committee to report out legislation under the budget reconciliation process that would provide for a revenue-neutral, comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. tax code and would include instructions to 11 House committees to trigger the budget reconciliation process to cut mandatory spending. The concurrent resolution would assume that, over 10 years, base (non-Overseas Contingency Operations) discretionary defense spending would be increased by a total of $929 billion over the Budget Control Act caps and non-defense spending be reduced by $1.3 trillion.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 206. A modified version was later agreed to by both the House and the Senate. [House Vote 557, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Noem Voted Against Instructing House Conferees To Not Support Changing Medicare Into A Premium Support System. In April 2015, Noem voted against a motion that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “instruct[ed] House conferees to recede from disagreement with the Senate with respect to a section in the fiscal 2016 Senate budget resolution relating to paid sick time, and recede from a provision in the House amendment that would assume changing Medicare to provide premium support payments.” The underlying legislation was the FY 2016 budget resolution. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 187 to 239. [House Vote 153, 4/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
2015: Noem Voted For The FY 2016 Budget Resolution, Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 Into A Voucher System. In March 2015, Noem voted for the FY 2016 budget resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the current fee-for-service Medicare program and its benefits would remain in place for people who enter the program before 2024. For new Medicare enrollees beginning in 2024, the budget envisions Medicare competing against private health care plans in a ‘premium support’ system where individuals would choose which health insurance plan they want for coverage through a new Medicare exchange, with the government making premium-support payments to the health plan to help pay for an individual's insurance premium.” The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Noem Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 Into A Voucher System. In March 2015, Noem voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the current fee-for-service Medicare program and its benefits would remain in place for people who enter the program before 2024. For new Medicare enrollees beginning in 2024, the budget envisions Medicare competing against private health care plans in a ‘premium support’ system where individuals would choose which health insurance plan they want for coverage through a new Medicare exchange, with the government making premium-support payments to the health plan to help pay for an individual's insurance premium.” The vote was on adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2013: Noem Voted For Replacing Medicare With A Premium Support Plan As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Noem voted for replacing Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the House Budget Committee, “Beginning in 2024, for those workers born in 1959 or later, Medicare would offer them a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option on a new Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or to offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.” The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
- CBPP: Ryan’s Medicare Policies In The FY 2014 Budget Were “Essentially The Same As Those In Last Year’s Ryan Budget.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Medicare proposals in the 2014 budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) are essentially the same as those in last year’s Ryan budget.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
- A Similar Provision in Ryan’s FY 2013 Budget Created A Medicare Exchange Where Beneficiaries Could Choose From Private Insurance Or A Fee-For-Service Model. According to CRS, “Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare beginning in 2023 would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan or a traditional fee-for-service option through a newly established Medicare exchange. These plans would be required to offer standard benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to traditional fee-for-service benefits, and to accept all people eligible for Medicare who apply regardless of age or health status. [CRS, 3/29/12]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Benchmarked Premium Support Amount To The Second-Lowest Premium On The Medicare Exchange. According to the House Budget Committee, “The benchmark plan would be either the second-least-expensive private plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever cost less. If a senior chose a more expensive plan than the benchmark, he or she would pay the difference between the subsidy and the monthly premium. And if a senior chose a plan less expensive than the benchmark, he or she would receive a rebate for the difference. Medicare would offer higher payments depending on the patient’s health history and the cost of living. And it would require private plans to cover at least the actuarial equivalent of the benefit package offered by the fee-for-service option.” [House Budget Committee, 3/13]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Resulted In Increased Out-Of-Pocket Premiums For Seniors If The Cost Of Insurance Rose Quicker Than GDP Growth Plus 0.5%. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
- If So, Seniors Would Have Had To Pay More Or Receive Less Benefits With Each Passing Year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
2012: Noem Voted To Replace Medicare With A Premium Support Plan As Part Of The FY 2013 Ryan Budget. In March 2012, Noem voted to replace Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022 According to the House Budget Committee, “For those workers currently under the age of 55, beginning in 2023, those seniors would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 228 to 191. The Senate later rejected a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution. [House Vote 151, 3/16/12; House Budget Committee, 3/20/12; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
- Ryan’s Budget Created A Medicare Exchange Where Beneficiaries Could Choose From Private Insurance Or A Fee-For-Service Model. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare beginning in 2023 would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan or a traditional fee-for-service option through a newly established Medicare exchange. These plans would be required to offer standard benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to traditional fee-for-service benefits, and to accept all people eligible for Medicare who apply regardless of age or health status. [Congressional Research Service, 3/29/12]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Benchmarked Premium Support Amount To The Second-Lowest Premium On The Medicare Exchange. According to the House Budget Committee, “The second-least expensive approved plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever is least expensive, would establish the benchmark that determines the premium-support amount for the plan chosen by the senior. If a senior chose a costlier plan than the benchmark plan, he or she would be responsible for paying the difference between the premium subsidy and the monthly premium. Conversely, if that senior chose a plan that cost less than the benchmark, he or she would be given a rebate for the difference. Payments to plans would be risk-adjusted and geographically rated.” [House Budget Committee, 3/20/12]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Resulted In Increased Out-Of-Pocket Premiums For Seniors If The Cost Of Insurance Rose Quicker Than GDP Growth Plus 0.5 Percent Causing Seniors To Pay More Or Receive Less Benefits. According to the Congressional Research Service, “The proposal suggests that program cost growth would be mitigated through the competitive bidding process; however, should that not occur, the proposal would limit annual per capita premium support increases to nominal GDP growth plus 0.5 percent. Should actual costs exceed this amount, Medicare beneficiaries would pay increased premiums to make up the difference. The proposal would limit the impact of these increases for low-income enrollees, with Medicaid continuing to pay for the out-of-pocket expenses for dual-eligibles (those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid), and additional funding would be provided in savings accounts for those who meet certain low-income limits but do not qualify for Medicaid. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits” [Congressional Research Service, 3/29/12; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2012: Noem Voted Against The FY 2013 Democratic Budget, Which Stated That Medicare Should Not Be Turned Into A Voucher Program. In March 2012, Noem voted to oppose preventing Medicare from becoming a voucher program as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2013 to 2022. According the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of the House that the Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities should be preserved and strengthened, and that any legislation to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of private insurance should be rejected.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 163 to 252. [House Vote 150, 3/29/12; House Budget Committee Democrats, 3/26/12; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1004; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
2011: Noem Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget, Which Replaced Medicare With A Premium Support Plan. In April 2011, Noem voted for replacing Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Under the new system, Medicare would pay a portion of the beneficiaries’ premiums, i.e., provide ‘premium support.’ The payments would be adjusted for age, health status, and income and would be paid directly by the government to the insurance plan selected by the Medicare beneficiary. In addition, plans with healthier enrollees would be required to help subsidize plans with less healthy enrollees.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 235 to 193. [House Vote 277, 4/15/11; CRS Report #R41767, 4/13/11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
- Wall Street Journal: The Ryan Plan “Would Essentially End Medicare.” According to the Wall Street Journal, “Republicans will present this week a 2012 budget proposal that would cut more than $4 trillion from federal spending projected over the next decade and transform the Medicare health program for the elderly, a move that will dramatically reshape the budget debate in Washington. […] The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11]
- Ryan’s Budget Eliminated Traditional Medicare And Created A Medicare Exchange On Which Seniors Could Purchase Private Plans. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare in 2022 and later years would not be able to enroll in the current Medicare program. Instead, they would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan through a newly established Medicare exchange.” [Congressional Research Service, 4/13/11]
- Under Ryan’s Medicare Plan, Size Of Premium Support Payment Would Be Reduced In Line With Each Recipient’s Income. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “The premium support payments [in the Ryan budget] would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. People in the top 2 percent of the annual income distribution of the Medicare-eligible population would receive 30 percent of the premium support amount described above; people in the next 6 percent of the distribution would receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining 92 percent of the distribution would receive the full premium support amount.” [Congressional Budget Office, 4/5/11]
- The Budget Would Index The Premium Support Amount To Overall Consumer Prices. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “[T]he proposal would convert the current Medicare program to a system under which beneficiaries received premium support payments—payments that would be used to help pay the premiums for a private health insurance policy and would grow over time with overall consumer prices.” [Congressional Budget Office, 4/5/11]
- The CBO Estimated That When Voucher Plan Went Into Effect, Ryan’s Medicare Plan Would More Than Double A Typical 65-Year-Old Medicare Beneficiaries’ Out-Of-Pocket Costs, Increasing Them By $6,350 Per Year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “CBO also finds that this beneficiary's [a typical 65-year-old] annual out-of-pocket costs would more than double — from $6,150 to $12,500. In later years, as the value of the voucher eroded, the increase in out-of-pocket costs would be even greater.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
2011: Noem Voted To Turn Medicare Into A Voucher Program. In April 2011, Noem voted against preventing Medicare from becoming a voucher program as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2012 to 2021. According to the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of the House that the Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities should be preserved and strengthened, and that any legislation to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of private insurance should be rejected.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 166 to 259. [House Vote 276, 4/15/11; Congressional Record, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 259; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
Noem Argued That The “Ryan Budget” “Saves Medicare.” According to the Daily Republic, “Noem reiterated her support for the so-called ‘Ryan budget’ passed by House Republicans, saying criticism of its Medicare proposal is unfair. President Obama's health care plan was first to change the government's health care program for senior citizens, she said. ‘His health care legislation fundamentally changed health care as we know it,’ she said. ‘A panel of 15 people will decide what kind of health care and treatment they can receive. The plan that passed on the House floor saves Medicare. This is an opportunity for us to fix it without impacting seniors and an opportunity to fix it without raising taxes.’” [Daily Republic, 5/27/11]
Noem Called Efforts To Turn Medicare Into A Voucher Program “Necessary” To “Save Medicare.” According to the Argus Leader, “NOEM: Well, we voted to save Medicare. It's going to go broke in nine years if we don't do anything. So the vote that we placed was to save it, and I wholeheartedly believe it was the right decision to make. Especially because if you look at the situation, if we don't fix Medicare now, if we wait two or three years to fix it, there's no way to fix it without cutting benefits to seniors. And that was the one thing we really keyed in on. We wanted to make sure that all those 55 and above, that we keep that plan the same, that there's no changes for them to give them the certainty that they needed in the program. So it's certainly a necessary fix to a program that's not going to be around in the future if we do nothing. The status quo isn't acceptable in my book.” [Argus Leader, 8/21/11]
2012: Noem Voted Against The FY 2013 Democratic Budget, Which Stated That Social Security Privatization Should Be Rejected. In March 2012, Noem voted to oppose preventing social security privatization as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2013 to 2022. According to the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of this resolution that Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security reform legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of the program.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 163 to 262. [House Vote 150, 3/29/12; House Budget Committee Democrats, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1004; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
2011: Noem Voted Against a Democratic Proposal Which Called For Rejecting Social Security Privatization. In April 2011, Noem voted to oppose preventing Social Security privatization as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2012 to 2021. According to the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of this resolution that Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security reform legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of the program.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 166 to 259. [House Vote 276, 4/15/11; Congressional Record, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 259; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
2017: Noem Voted For The GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For Cutting Medicare By $473 Billion. In October 2017, Noem voted for a budget resolution that would have, according to The Hill, “The spending blueprint is key to Republicans’ efforts to pass tax reform because it includes instructions that will allow the plan to avoid a Democratic filibuster. […] The budget, meant to outline spending for the fiscal year, was widely viewed as a mere vehicle for passing tax reform. […] The budget would allow the Senate GOP’s tax plan to add up to $1.5 trillion to the deficit over a decade, a proposal that has raised concerns with fiscal hawks in the GOP. Its instructions call for the Senate Finance Committee to report a tax bill by Nov. 13. Still, the document outlines the Senate GOP’s political vision. It maintains spending at 2017 levels for the year, but would then cut nondefense spending in subsequent years, leading to a $106 billion cut in 2027. It would also allow defense levels to continue rising at their current rates, reaching $684 billion at the end of a decade. The resolution also proposes $473 billion in cuts to Medicare’s baseline spending over a decade and about $1 trillion from Medicaid, though those provisions are not enforceable without additional legislation.” The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby agreeing to the budget by a vote of 216 to 212. [House Vote 589, 10/26/17; The Hill, 10/19/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Noem Voted For The House GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Called For $1.5 Trillion In Health Care Programmatic Cuts, Including Medicare. In October 2017, Noem voted for the House GOP FY 2018 budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would provide for $3.2 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018, not including off-budget accounts. It would assume $1.22 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2018. It would assume the repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul law. It also would propose reducing spending on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and changing programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as food stamps). It would call for restructuring Medicare into a ‘premium support’ system beginning in 2024. I would also require the House Ways and Means Committee to report out legislation under the budget reconciliation process that would provide for a revenue-neutral, comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. tax code and would include instructions to 11 House committees to trigger the budget reconciliation process to cut mandatory spending. The concurrent resolution would assume that, over 10 years, base (non-Overseas Contingency Operations) discretionary defense spending would be increased by a total of $929 billion over the Budget Control Act caps and non-defense spending be reduced by $1.3 trillion.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 206. A modified version was later agreed to by both the House and the Senate. [House Vote 557, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
- The Legislation Called For $487 Billion In Medicare Cuts. According to The Congressional Quarterly, “Under the budget, assumed spending (outlay) savings include $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and other health programs (including by enacting the House-passed bill from earlier this year to repeal and replace the 2010 health care law), $487 billion from Medicare, and $2.4 billion from other mandatory spending programs. It also assumes $541 billion in savings from reduced interest on the national debt.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/17]
2015: Noem Voted To Make $430 Billion In Unexplained Cuts To Medicare, As Part Of The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution. In April 2015, Noem voted for the FY 2016 conference report budget resolution which, according to the Congressional Conference Report, “The agreement proposes the same amount of Medicare savings reflected in the Senate-passed fiscal year 2016 budget as a target to extend the life of the Hospital Insurance trust fund and tasks the committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate with determining the specific Medicare reforms needed to bring spending levels under current law in line with the budget.” According to Bloomberg, the Senate’s original budget, “avoided a plan to partially privatize Medicare that the U.S. House of Representatives embraced in its budget [and] instead call[ed] for $430 billion in spending cuts without explaining where they would be made.” The vote was on the Conference Report; the Conference Report passed by a vote of 226 to 197. The Senate also passed the budget resolution. [House Vote 183, 4/30/15; Conference Report, 4/29/15; Bloomberg, 3/27/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
- Politico: Senate Republican FY 2016 Budget “Calls For Finding $430 Billion In Cuts From Medicare.” According to Politico, “The overall budget, written by Enzi in his first budget as chairman, slashes $5.1 trillion in spending over 10 years — achieving the GOP’s goal of balancing the budget within a decade. The budget also relies heavily on a war contingency fund to boost military spending — a move that allows Republicans to go around the strict spending caps outlined in a 2011 deficit deal. It calls for finding $430 billion in cuts from Medicare but offers few details on how to achieve those savings. It also proposes cuts to Medicaid and welfare programs, while not increasing taxes. The budget also gives reconciliation instructions to two key committees that would be charged with replacing Obamacare.” [Politico, 3/27/15]
¶ 2011: Noem Voted For The “Cut, Cap And Balance” Plan, Which Would Have Drastically Programs Like Medicare
2011: Noem Voted For The “Cut, Cap And Balance” Plan That Would Drastically Cut Federal Spending. In July 2011, Noem voted for the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “Along with the balanced-budget amendment provisions, the House passed ‘cut, cap, balance’ bill proposes drastic cuts in fiscal 2012 spending and setting future spending limits. Specifically, it would set fiscal 2012 discretionary spending at $1.019 trillion, the level set in the House's budget resolution for the year (H Con Res 34), and cap annual federal spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product by fiscal 2021, down from an estimated 22.5 percent for fiscal 2012.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 190. The bill was tabled in the Senate. [House Vote 606, 7/19/11; Congressional Quarterly Today, 7/22/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2560]
- CBPP: The Cut, Cap And Balance Bill “Would Necessitate Deep Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare, “Big Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare Would Be “Inevitable.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions. The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the-board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled. Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big cuts in these programs would be inevitable.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
- CBPP: Cut, Cap, And Balance Was “One Of The Most Ideologically Extreme Pieces Of Major Budget Legislation To Come Before Congress In Years.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance Act’ that the House of Representatives will vote on next week stands out as one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades. It would go a substantial way toward enshrining Grover Norquist’s version of America into law.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
- Center For American Progress: Cut, Cap, And Balance Meant “Simply Massive Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare. According to the Center for American Progress, “There is no way around the basic arithmetic. The only way to achieve that level of spending is by radically altering some fundamental public programs and services. A federal spending cap may sound innocuous but it is simply massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by another name.” [Center for American Progress, 7/18/11]
- Cut, Cap, And Balance Would Have Required More Extreme Cuts Than The Ryan Budget Plan. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The constitutional balanced budget amendment that the House Judiciary Committee began considering June 2 and is expected to pass next week, is a highly ideological measure that would force Congress to enact the Republican Study Committee’s extreme budget plan or something similar to it. Even the House-passed budget plan of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would not pass muster under the proposal; the more draconian Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget or a close equivalent would be required.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/6/11]
- AARP Opposed The Cut, Cap And Balance Because It Did Not Shield Social Security and Medicare From “Arbitrary Reductions.” According to the AARP, “In addition, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act requires that a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution be transmitted to the states as a pre-condition of increasing the debt ceiling. Social Security and Medicare, which are not excluded under the balanced budget amendment, would therefore be at risk for arbitrary reductions under the constitutional amendment, and as such, AARP is opposed.” [AARP Letter, 7/21/11]
- The National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare: Cut, Cap And Balance “Would Require Draconian Spending Cuts Of Such A Magnitude As To Force Policymakers To Severely Slash Medicare, Medicaid, And Many Other Programs While Opening The Door To Massive New Tax Cuts.” According to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: “As a result, these proposals would require draconian spending cuts of such a magnitude as to force policymakers to severely slash Medicare, Medicaid, and many other programs while opening the door to massive new tax cuts. What is most alarming to our members is that the amendment would negatively impact Social Security by essentially nullifying the trust funds as a source of funding for the payment of benefits.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 7/18/11]
¶ Noem Voted For “Cut, Cap And Balance” Plan, Which Would Have Cut Social Security
2011: Noem Voted For The “Cut, Cap And Balance” Plan That Would Drastically Cut Federal Spending To Balance The Budget, All In Exchange For Raising Debt Limit. In July 2011, Noem voted for the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “Along with the balanced-budget amendment provisions, the House passed ‘cut, cap, balance’ bill proposes drastic cuts in fiscal 2012 spending and setting future spending limits. Specifically, it would set fiscal 2012 discretionary spending at $1.019 trillion, the level set in the House's budget resolution for the year (H Con Res 34), and cap annual federal spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product by fiscal 2021, down from an estimated 22.5 percent for fiscal 2012.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 190. The bill was tabled in the Senate. [House Vote 606, 7/19/11; Congressional Quarterly Today, 7/22/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2560]
- CBPP: The Cut, Cap And Balance Bill “Would Necessitate Deep Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions. The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the-board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled. Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big cuts in these programs would be inevitable.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
- Center For American Progress: Cut, Cap, Balance Meant “Simply Massive Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare. According to the Center for American Progress, “There is no way around the basic arithmetic. The only way to achieve that level of spending is by radically altering some fundamental public programs and services. A federal spending cap may sound innocuous but it is simply massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by another name.” [Center for American Progress, 7/18/11]
- AARP Opposed Cut, Cap And Balance Because It Did Not Shield Social Security From “Arbitrary Reductions.” According to the AARP, “In addition, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act requires that a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution be transmitted to the states as a pre-condition of increasing the debt ceiling. Social Security and Medicare, which are not excluded under the balanced budget amendment, would therefore be at risk for arbitrary reductions under the constitutional amendment, and as such, AARP is opposed.” [AARP Letter, 7/21/11]
- The National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare Claimed The Legislation Would “Negatively Impact Social Security.” According to The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, “As a result, these proposals would require draconian spending cuts of such a magnitude as to force policymakers to severely slash Medicare, Medicaid, and many other programs while opening the door to massive new tax cuts. What is most alarming to our members is that the amendment would negatively impact Social Security by essentially nullifying the trust funds as a source of funding for the payment of benefits.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 7/18/11]
2013: Noem Voted For Means Testing Medicare As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Noem voted for means testing Medicare, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the House Budget Committee, “his budget also advances a bipartisan proposal to further means-test premiums in Medicare Parts B and D for high-income seniors, similar to the President’s proposal in his fiscal year 2013 budget.” The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
- Medicare Part B And Part D Premiums Would Have Increased For Some Seniors By $42.00 To $230.80 Per Month. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Ryan budget would raise Medicare’s income-related premiums. Currently, most Medicare beneficiaries pay premiums for Parts B and D (which cover physician services and prescription drugs, respectively) that represent about one-quarter of program costs. The standard Part B premium is $104.90 a month in 2013, but beneficiaries with incomes above $85,000 (twice that amount for couples) must pay an extra amount that ranges from $42.00 to $230.80 a month.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
- Medicare Prescription Drug Premiums Would Have Increased For Some Seniors By $11.60 To $66.60 Per Month. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, “High-income beneficiaries also must pay more for their Medicare prescription drug benefit, with the same income thresholds as for the income-related Part B premium. The additional premium amounts for the drug benefit range from $11.60 to $66.60 a month.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
AUDIO: Noem Said She Was Open To Cutting Medicare For Wealthy People. According to a Noem Tele-Town Hall via Soundcloud, “NOEM: What I've said to people and one of the ideas that I've tried to push out here is, oh, you know, we can, we have lots of opportunities where we don't have to give the rich subsidies. I mean, if you're if you, why do we, you know, pay for you for Medicare? You know, maybe we don't subsidize you to the level we do everybody else.” [Noem Tele-Town Hall via Soundcloud, 12/12/12]
2015: Noem Voted Against Preventing An Estimated 52% Increase In Medicare Part B Premiums As Part Of The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2015. In October 2015, Noem voted against preventing an estimated 52 percent increase in Medicare Part B Premium Increase as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The agreement prevents an estimated 52% increase in Medicare Part B (medical insurance) premiums in 2016 for certain beneficiaries by resetting the premiums for those who are not protected by ‘hold harmless’ provisions in current law, providing instead for a lower increase. […] CBO estimates that these provisions would cost $5.2 billion in FY 2016 and $2.1 billion in FY 2017, but over 10 years would produce $240 million in savings.” The measure was part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which also “would suspend the debt limit until March 15, 2017 and increase[d] the discretionary spending cap for fiscal 2016 by $50 billion and for fiscal 2017 by $30 billion, with the increases split equally between defense and non-defense spending” among other provisions.” The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 266 to 167. The Senate later passed the bill and the president later signed it into law. [House Vote 579, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1314]
- CQ: 30% Of Medicare Beneficiaries Not Covered By “Hold Harmless” Provisions Would See Premium Spikes. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Roughly 70% of Medicare Part B enrollees are covered by a ‘hold harmless’ provision that prevents their premiums from rising more than their Social Security paychecks. Because there is no Social Security cost-of-living-adjustment scheduled for next year, premiums for those beneficiaries would remain frozen at the 2015 level. For the remaining 30% of beneficiaries who are not held harmless, however, Part B premiums would spike to make up for the premium freeze for the 70% (under the law, 25% of the costs of Medicare Part B must be covered by beneficiaries). This exposed group includes new Medicare enrollees, those who do not receive Social Security checks, higher-income beneficiaries and low-income seniors enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid who have their premiums paid by the states. The measure maintains the hold-harmless provision in current law, but it sets the monthly Part B premium rate for the exposed group at $120 for 2016 — a $15 (and 15%) increase from the current monthly premium of $104.90 (rather than a $54 increase to $159.30 that would otherwise occur). A monthly premium of $120 is the amount the premium would otherwise be for all beneficiaries if the hold-harmless provision did not apply. It also would alleviate an increase in the Part B deductible for all beneficiaries, lowering it from a projected $223 to $167. The agreement also provides that if there is no Social Security COLA for 2017, the measure's provision would apply once again.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
- The Budget Agreement Provided Offsets By Requiring The Beneficiary Not Subject To Hold Harmless To Pay An Additional $3 Monthly Part B Premium. According to Congressional Quarterly, “To cover the cost of the Part B premium adjustment, the agreement provides for a loan from the Treasury to the Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which finances Medicare reimbursements. But it also establishes a system for repayment of that loan, requiring the 30% of beneficiaries not subject to the hold-harmless provision to pay an additional $3 in their monthly Part B premium beginning in 2016 until the loan is repaid. Those who pay higher income-related premium adjustments would pay more than $3, with the amount increasing in proportion to higher income brackets.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
- AARP Endorsed Budget Deal In Part Because It Prevented Medicare Part B Premium Spike. According to the AARP, “On behalf of our 38 million members and as the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing the interests of Americans age 50 and older and their families, AARP strongly supports the bipartisan agreement you have reached to avert deep reductions in Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in 2016, and to address the imminent spike in Medicare Part B premiums which many older Americans would otherwise experience. Your efforts to reach across the aisle and together find sensible solutions to significant problems are appreciated and commended.” [AARP, 10/27/15]