Highlights:
Stefanik Called For Social Security To Be “Modernized,” Otherwise People In Her Generation Would Not Have Access To Benefits. According to the Sun Community News accessed via the Wayback Machine, “While the Valley News didn’t specifically discuss the intricacies of the Ryan Budget Plan, the GOP blueprint the House passed along party lines earlier this month that seeks to balance the budget with deep cuts to domestic spending, the candidate said no cuts should be made to those who have already paid into Social Security. ‘They deserve their benefits and it’s very important to make that clear,’ she said. Stefanik, noting that she will turn 30 the week before the primary in June, expressed concerns that the program won’t be there for her generation unless it is ‘modernized.’” [Sun Community News accessed via the Wayback Machine, 4/22/14]
Stefanik Supported Raising The Retirement Age For Social Security. According to the Sun Community News accessed via the Wayback Machine, “While the Valley News didn’t specifically discuss the intricacies of the Ryan Budget Plan, the GOP blueprint the House passed along party lines earlier this month that seeks to balance the budget with deep cuts to domestic spending, the candidate said no cuts should be made to those who have already paid into Social Security. ‘They deserve their benefits and it’s very important to make that clear,’ she said. Stefanik, noting that she will turn 30 the week before the primary in June, expressed concerns that the program won’t be there for her generation unless it is ‘modernized.’ ‘We need to have a bipartisan conversation to discuss the trend towards fiscal insolvency,’ she said. One idea she mentioned was raising the retirement age. ‘I think its important for those programs to reflect reality and common sense solutions.’” [Sun Community News accessed via the Wayback Machine, 4/22/14]
2015: Stefanik Voted For The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67, Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Stefanik 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]
2015: Stefanik Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67, Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Stefanik 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 the 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]
CBPP: Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age 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]
2017: Stefanik Voted For The House GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For Ending Medicare In Its Current Form. In October 2017, Stefanik 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: Stefanik Voted For The FY 2016 Budget Resolution, Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 To A Voucher System. In March 2015, Stefanik 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: Stefanik Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 To A Voucher System. In March 2015, Stefanik 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 the 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]
2017: Stefanik Voted For The House GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For $1.5 Trillion In Health Care Programmatic Cuts, Including Medicare. In October 2017, Stefanik 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: Stefanik Voted To Make $430 Billion In Unexplained Cuts To Medicare As Part Of The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution. In April 2015, Stefanik 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]
The Center For Budget And Policy Priorities: Budget Would Eliminate Health Coverage For Millions Of Americans. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The House-passed budget agreement that the Senate will consider next week would repeal health reform and cut Medicaid over the coming decade by roughly half a trillion dollars on top, making tens of millions more Americans uninsured.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/1/15]
Stefanik Was Policy Director Of The 2012 Republican National Convention Platform Committee.
[GOP.com – The Platform Committee, accessed via the Wayback Machine, 11/6/12]
The 2012 Republican Platform Said Younger Workers Should Be Given The Option Of “Personal Investment Accounts As Supplements To The System.” According to the New York Times, “And while the Democratic platform opposes any privatization of Social Security, the Republican platform says younger workers should be given the option of ‘personal investment accounts as supplements to the system.’” [New York Times, 9/5/12]
The 2012 Republican Platform Would Reshape Medicare For Those Under 55 So They Would Get “An Income-Adjusted Contribution Toward A Health Plan Of The Enrollee’s Choice.” According to the New York Times, “When it comes to Medicare, the Democratic platform says the party will oppose ‘any efforts to privatize or voucherize’ the program, while the Republican platform would reshape the program for those under 55 so they would get ‘an income-adjusted contribution toward a health plan of the enrollee’s choice,’ including a government plan.” [New York Times, 9/5/12]
2012: Stefanik Was Ryan’s Debate Prep Coach During The Romney-Ryan Presidential Campaign. According to Politico, “Career: White House domestic policy aide; deputy policy director for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign; founder of American Maggie, a website for female GOP writers; Foreign Policy Initiative communications director; Republican National Convention 2012 policy director; 2012 vice presidential debate prep coach for Rep. Paul Ryan” [Politico, 8/12/14]
March 2012: Romney Endorsed Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2013 Budget Plan. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Paul Ryan’s new budget plan drew praise from GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney and an attack from President Obama’s reelection campaign Tuesday. The House Republicans’ fiscal blueprint for 2013 would slash federal spending, lower tax rates and substantially overhaul Medicare in an effort to free the nation ‘from the crushing burden of debt,’ Ryan wrote in a document outlining the plan. In a statement from his campaign, Romney lauded the House Budget Committee chairman ‘for taking a bold step toward putting our nation back on the track to fiscal sanity.’ He said he and Ryan were of the same mind on cutting taxes and overhauling the tax code. ‘As president, I look forward to working with Chairman Ryan and his House Republican colleagues to pass bold reforms that restore America’s promise,’ he said.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/20/12]
2011: Romney’s Medicare Proposal Introduced “Premium Support” Vouchers To Future Recipients. According to the Associated Press accessed via the Wayback Machine, “Mitt Romney on Friday unveiled a plan to fundamentally re-shape Medicare, tackling one of the 2012 presidential contest’s most delicate issues before a skeptical crowd of tea party activists. To cut costs, the Republican presidential hopeful and former Massachusetts governor would introduce vouchers, or ‘premium supports,’ to future recipients of the popular health insurance program for the elderly.” [Associated Press accessed via the Wayback Machine, 11/4/11]
Romney’s Medicare Proposal Offered Choice Between Privatized Vouchers Or A Fee-For-Service System. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Mitt Romney waded into the hot-button issue of Medicare, proposing to offer future seniors a choice between the current fee-for-service health plan or a voucher to purchase health insurance plans offered by private insurance companies. The Romney Medicare plan could become a hallmark of the 2012 presidential campaign should he win the Republican nomination. Democrats had already planned to make the Ryan plan a centerpiece of their efforts to unseat Republicans in Congress. Now, Mr. Romney has thrust Medicare privatization into the presidential race.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/4/11]
2012: Romney Proposed Gradually Raising Retirement Age For Social Security. According to a campaign press release accessed via the Wayback Machine, “Looking ahead to yawning future deficits from the unfunded promises of Social Security and Medicare that threaten the nation’s solvency and foreshadow growth-destroying tax hikes, Romney proposes to shore up these important programs without impacting seniors who are at or near retirement, and without tax hikes. Social Security For younger generations, gradually raise the retirement age and index the growth in benefits for higher-income retirees to inflation instead of wages.” [Romney for President accessed via the Wayback Machine, 2/22/12]
2011: Ryan’s Budget Proposed Replacing Medicare With A Premium Support Plan And Eliminating Traditional Medicare As An Option. 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.” [CRS Report #R41767, 4/13/11]
Wall Street Journal: Ryan’s 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 Said Social Security Privatization Was Not Necessary, But He Preferred It Personally. According to a transcript of “The Charlie Rose Show,” Ryan was asked, “When you look at that Social Security for a moment, do you think it’s necessary to reform Social Security with private accounts?” Ryan responded, “No, it’s not necessary. I personally prefer it because, look at me, for example. I’m 40 years old. I’ll about a one percent return on my payroll taxes if Social Security could pay me my benefit, which, of course, it can’t […] It’s not privatized. It’s managed by the government in safe index funds. It harnesses the power of compound interest so they grow their money at five percent or six percent per year instead of negative one percent. They get better benefits. It’s a nest egg they control that goes to their property.” [“The Charlie Rose Show” accessed via Politico, 11/15/10]
2010: Ryan’s Plan Proposed Speeding Up The Current Increase In The Social Security Retirement Age So That It Reaches 67 A Year Early, In 2026, And Then Raising The Retirement Age By One Month Every Two Years Until It Reaches 70. According to Paul Ryan, “When Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy for men in America was 60 years; for women it was 64. Today, average life expectancy has increased to 75 years for men and 80 years for women (2007 figures). Life expectancies are expected to continue lengthening throughout the century. Given these facts, and the choice among many Americans to work additional years, this proposal extends the gradual increase in the retirement age, from 65 to 67, occurring under existing policies, and speeds it up by 1 year. Once the current-law retirement age reaches 67 in 2026, this proposal continues its progression in line with expected increases in life expectancy. This will have the effect of increasing the retirement age by 1 month every 2 years. The retirement age will gradually increase until it reaches 70 in the next century. The modernization of the retirement age will not affect the ability of an individual who chooses the personal account system to retire early, as long as his or her account has accumulated enough funds to provide an annuity equivalent to 150 percent of poverty.” [Paul Ryan, “A Roadmap For America’s Future Version 2.0,” January 2010]
Stefanik Was The Director Of New Media And Deputy Policy Director Of Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC. According to North Country Public Radio, “2011 Tim Pawlenty, former Minnesota governor, presidential candidate: With American Maggie still occasionally publishing articles, Stefanik begins working as the Director of New Media and Deputy Policy Director for then Tim Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC, a political action committee designed to boost his presidential bid.” [North Country Public Radio, 10/21/14]
Stefanik Was Deputy Policy Director For Pawlenty’s Presidential Campaign. According to Politico, “Career: White House domestic policy aide; deputy policy director for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign; founder of American Maggie, a website for female GOP writers; Foreign Policy Initiative communications director; Republican National Convention 2012 policy director; 2012 vice presidential debate prep coach for Rep. Paul Ryan” [Politico, 8/12/14]
2010: Pawlenty Said Social Security And Medicare Benefits Would Need To Be Reduced For Those “Who Are New To The System.” According to the Star Tribune, “GOV. PAWLENTY: here's the math. the federal government takes in $2.2 trillion a year in revenues, all sources for all purposes. their total unfunded liabilities including entitlements, pensions, the whole bill is $65 trillion. there is no way to make the math work. the truth of the matter is we'll have to reform entitlement programs. i have done it in minnesota with the bus drivers and the twin cities. they had post retiree benefits and the premise is this, if we made a promise to you, we'll keep it. we won't cut off pensions but for people new to the system coming on where we can give them notice and change expectations, the system is going to change. and we did it.” [Star Tribune, 2/21/10]
Pawlenty Said Medicare Should Be Changed From “Paying For Volumes Of Procedures Performed” To “Paying For Better Healthcare Outcomes.” According to Real Clear Politics, “RCP: You say that Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements ‘are going to have to be changed.’ How should they be changed? Pawlenty: […] On Medicare, we need to switch from the current system, which is paying for volumes of procedures performed, to paying for better healthcare outcomes. We should offer incentives for healthcare providers to actually improve the health of people and turn it into a performance pay system, particularly as it relates to the chronic care conditions like cancer and diabetes and obesity and heart disease and others that account for most of the medical expenditures in the system.” [Real Clear Politics interview, 7/14/10]
2011: Pawlenty Said He Would Consider Raising The Retirement Age. According to the Washington Post, “Pawlenty also said raising the retirement age is an option he’s willing to consider for younger workers entering Social Security programs. ‘Your retirement age is going to be pegged to some reasonable correlation to life expectancy,’ he said. Pawlenty wrapped up a two-day visit to New Hampshire as part of his book tour. He said he will decide whether he will seek the White House in the coming weeks.” [Washington Post, 1/25/11]
2006 – 2009: Stefanik Worked In The George W. Bush Administration. According to Stefanik’s bio, “From 2006 to 2009, Elise served in the West Wing of the White House on President George W. Bush’s Domestic Policy Council Staff and the Chief of Staff’s office where she assisted in overseeing the policy development process on all economic and domestic policy issues.” [Rep. Elise Stefanik, Bio, accessed 1/11/24]
Bush Tried To Privatize Social Security. According to Vox, “The 2004 election gave President George W. Bush a second term in office and expanded Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. So soon afterward, he pledged to spend the ‘political capital’ he said he’d earned on a longtime conservative priority — the partial privatization of Social Security.” [Vox, 1/9/17]
2014: Stefanik Abruptly Ended A Press Conference When Asked To Clarify Protecting Seniors Who Were “In Or Near Retirement.” According to the Post Star, “Republican and Conservative Party congressional candidate Elise Stefanik abruptly ended a press conference and walked away when reporters asked for specifics about her position on Medicare and Social Security coverage for future generations of retirees. Stefanik held a press conference Monday in front the Glens Falls Senior Center to reiterate her position that no changes should be made in Social Security and Medicare for ‘our seniors today.’ Stefanik said the federal government has a commitment to those who have paid into the program for years. ‘So then, my commitment is protecting and preserving these programs for our seniors with no changes to those who are in or near retirement, because they have paid in to these programs,’ she said. When a reporter asked her to define ‘In or near retirement,’ Stefanik abruptly ended the press conference and walked away from reporters.” [Post Star, 8/25/14]
Stefanik Dodged Questions When Asked How She Would “Protect And Preserve” Medicare For Future Generations. According to the Post Star, “Asked how she would ‘protect and preserve’ Medicare for future generations, she said, ‘I’m willing to have a conversation with anyone regardless of party affiliation about ideas and how we can protect and preserve these programs. ... I’m willing to roll up my sleeves and solve these issues instead of kicking the can down the road, which is what Washington has been doing for generations, frankly.’” [Post Star, 8/25/14]
Stefanik Dodged Questions When Asked If She Would Support Paul Ryan’s Medicare Proposal Which Would Cut Off Medicare Benefits For Those 55 Or Younger. According to the Post Star, “Stefanik was a debate preparation adviser on Ryan’s 2012 vice presidential campaign, and Ryan has endorsed her congressional candidacy and contributed, through his political action committee, to her campaign fund. In interviews with The Post-Star on Aug. 19 and April 15, Stefanik would not say whether she supports Ryan’s Medicare proposal. Asked in April if she agrees with Ryan’s age cutoff of 55 and younger to no longer receive traditional Medicare, she said, ‘I’m going to take a good look at it. I have to study it first.’” [Post Star, 8/25/14]