When, As Occasionally Happens, a Republican Gets Things Even Partly Right ...

... you can expect it to be held against him (or her, but in this case him), and against the GOP in general:

The reason we’re in trouble is because over seventy-four percent of federal spending is on autopilot -- mandatory spending, that is your entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and things like Social Security -- they have to be adjusted and fixed. We have a plan to do that next year.

That's Mike Johnson (R-LA), Speaker of the US House of Representatives.

He seems to be high-balling mandatory spending somewhat -- the percentage I came up with is about 60%. It may be that he's including interest on the loans he and his fellow politicians have taken out (the "national debt"), which comes to about 13%.

But it's a fair point, and Johnson is right:

If the US government ever wants to stop running operating deficits every year (adding to that debt, and to those interest payments), either those programs have to take in more money (via tax revenues), or those programs have to spend less (through cuts).

Unfortunately, you're not allowed to say that if you want your party's candidates to do well in elections, because the many of the beneficiaries of those entitlements happen to also be among the most wealthy and politically powerful demographic -- "senior citizens."

Suggesting any reduction in Total Boomer Luxury Communism is political suicide, and likely will be until the the system delivering those bennies (effectively the US government itself) actually, unavoidably, inevitably, and totally collapses.

If you don't believe me, look up the name "Dan Rostenkowski." As chair of the US House Ways and Means Committee, he proposed adding "catastrophic health coverage" to Medicare. The idea being that if something really bad happened to you, Medicare would kick in more to keep hospital bills from bankrupting you. It was very popular, and it passed.

Then Medicare beneficiaries discovered the catch: They had to pay a little more -- $4 a month in 1989, rising to $10.20 per month in 1990, after which it would be indexed to inflation -- for that extra coverage. Here's well that was received:

"Cat health" was repealed the following year, reminding politicians that you do not expect senior citizens to pay for anything, ever, nor do you even hint that Uncle Sugar might knock a car or two off the end of the gravy train.

Johnson was right, and brave to be right, but that statement will almost certainly show up in Democratic campaign advertising between now and November, and Republican candidates will find themselves pointedly asked whether they agree with it at town halls and such.

All that said, one of the first things that could be done to bring government spending into line with tax revenues is to make deep cuts to the (entirely "discretionary") "defense" budget, which is probably at least ten times the size needed for actual "national defense." But that's got its own set of electrified rails.