The Path to Prosperity
The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise was the Republican Party's budget proposal for the federal government of the United States in the fiscal year 2012. It was succeeded in March 2012 by "The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal", the Republican budget proposal for 2013. Representative Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, played a prominent public role in drafting and promoting both The Path to Prosperity proposals, and they are therefore often referred to as the Ryan budget, Ryan plan or Ryan proposal.
The plans stand in contrast to the 2012 and 2013 budget proposals, outlined by President Barack Obama and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The 2012 Republican proposal was formalized and passed by the House of Representatives on Friday, April 15, 2011 by a vote of 235 to 193, largely along party lines. No Democrats voted in favor of the bill, and four Republicans—Walter B. Jones Jr., David McKinley, Ron Paul and Denny Rehberg—voted against it. A month later, the Senate voted against the budget by a vote of 57–40.
The 2013 proposal would have provided workers under the age of 55 a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium payment to either pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior. This plan was similar to a plan developed with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, but was different enough so that the Senator opposed it. To secure Medicaid benefits, The Path to Prosperity would have converted the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant indexed for inflation and population growth. The 2013 proposal also would have capped non-defense discretionary federal spending at $1.029 trillion and consolidated the six existing income tax brackets into two.
In April 2011, Ryan published three videos on The Path to Prosperity.
In March 2013, Ryan introduced H.Con.Res 25 to the House of Representatives, a new version of the budget updated for fiscal year 2014. The House voted 221–207 to pass H.Con.Res 25 on March 21, 2013. By July, the Ryan budget lost support when even House Republicans failed to support the THUD cuts.
In 2016, Ryan and Representative Kevin Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, proposed a similar tax plan entitled A Better Way.
History
On May 21, 2008, Ryan originally introduced H.R. 6110, the Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008. This proposed legislation outlined changes to entitlement spending, including a controversial proposal to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors. The Roadmap found only eight sponsors and did not move past committee.On January 27, 2010, Ryan released a modified version of his Roadmap, H.R. 4529: Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2010. The modified plan would provide across-the-board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminate income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolish the corporate income tax, estate tax, and Alternative Minimum Tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, and privatize Medicare. Chief actuary of Medicare Rick Foster compared Ryan's "Roadmap" with the 2010 healthcare reform in congressional hearings, stating that while both had "some potential" to make healthcare prices "more sustainable", he was more "confident" in Ryan's plan.
Key features
The Republican 2012 Budget proposal, as specified to Congressional Budget Office by Paul Ryan's staff, encompasses changes to Medicare, Medicaid, the major 2010 health care legislation, other government spending, and tax law.Medicare and Medicaid changes
- Medicare: Starting in 2022, the proposal would end the current Medicare program for all Americans born after 1957 and replace it with a new program which uses a voucher and would increase the age of eligibility for Medicare:
- * Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.
- * After 2022, the current Medicare program ends for all people who have not already enrolled. People already enrolled in the current Medicare program prior to 2022 would continue to receive the program. New enrollees after 2022 would be entitled to a voucher to help them purchase private health insurance.
- * Beneficiaries of the voucher payments would choose among competing private insurance plans operating in a newly established Medicare exchange. Plans would have to insure all eligible people who apply and would have to charge the same premiums for enrollees of the same age. The voucher payments would go directly from the government to the private insurance companies that people selected.
- * The voucher payments would vary with the health status of the beneficiary. For the average 65-year-old, payment in 2022 is specified to be $8,000, which is approximately the same dollar amount as projected net federal spending per capita for 65-year-olds in traditional Medicare in that year.
- * Each year, the voucher payments would increase to reflect increases in the consumer price index and the fact that enrollees in Medicare tend to be less healthy and require more costly health care as they age. They would not increase by the higher, healthcare inflation rate.
- * The voucher payments to enrollees would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. The wealthiest 2% of enrollees would receive 30 percent of the premium support amount described above; the next 6% would receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining 92% the income distribution would receive the full premium support amount described above.
- * Eligibility for the traditional Medicare program would not change for people who are age 55 or older by the end of 2011 or for people who receive Medicare benefits through the Disability Insurance program prior to 2022. People covered under traditional Medicare would, beginning in 2022, have the option of switching to the voucher system.
- The proposal would modify Medicaid as follows:
- * Starting in 2013, the federal share of all Medicaid payments would be converted into block grants to be allocated to the states. The total dollar amount of the block grants would increase annually with population growth and with growth in the consumer price index.
- * Starting in 2022, Medicaid block grant payments would be reduced to exclude projected spending for acute care services for elderly Medicaid beneficiaries.
- * States would have additional flexibility in designing their programs.
Repeal of 2010 health care legislation
- 2010 Health Care Legislation: The Republican proposal would make several changes to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
- * In general, key provisions of those laws that deal with insurance coverage would be repealed, including:
- ** Repeal the requirement that most legal U.S. residents obtain health insurance;
- ** Repeal the establishment of health insurance exchanges and subsidies for some individuals and families who purchase coverage through the exchanges;
- ** Repeal the expansion of Medicaid coverage to include most nonelderly income below 138 percent of the federal poverty level;
- ** Repeal penalties on certain employers if any of their workers obtain subsidized coverage through the exchanges; and
- ** Repeal tax credits for small employers that offer health insurance.
- * The proposal would repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act program for long-term care insurance, as well as a number of mandatory grant programs including funds for so-called high-risk pools, reinsurance for early retirees, and prevention and public health activities.
- * The proposal would repeal the provisions that created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.
- * Canceling the expanded subsidies aimed at closing the "coverage gap" in Medicare Part D, the so-called "Medicare doughnut hole." The gap is a range of spending in which many Medicare beneficiaries are financially responsible for the entire cost of prescription drugs until the expense reaches the catastrophic coverage threshold.
Other healthcare reforms
- Tort reform: Several changes would be made to laws governing medical malpractice, including putting in place limits on noneconomic and punitive damages.
Other spending cuts
Revenues and taxation
The instructions given to the CBO to evaluate the proposal specified revenue of 19% GDP, which is above the current level of around 15% GDP and slightly above the 30-year historical average of 18.2% GDP. The Path states separately that income tax rates would be lowered and selected tax expenditures would be eliminated. A Reuters article has also stated that the plan would eliminate taxes on overseas profits for businesses.Social Security
receives no changes in the proposal compared to the baseline. The CBO states that "spending on that program is projected to be relatively stable as a share of GDP from 2030 forward."Public opinion
According to Politico, most polls are unfavorable towards the plan. According to liberal columnist Ezra Klein when CBO estimates of benefit cuts are factored in, 80 percent or more of Americans oppose the plan.In June 2011, a CNN/ORC poll found that 58 percent of Americans opposed the idea while 35 supported. Among seniors, 74 percent opposed the plan. In the same month a Pew Research poll surveyed support for changing Medicare and found that 41 percent of Americans opposed it while 36 percent supported it. The Pew poll found that the more Democrats and Independents were made aware of the plan were more likely to oppose it; Republicans were more supportive the more they heard about it. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 31 percent of Americans thought it was a bad idea while 22 percent thought it was a good idea.
In April 2011, a New York Times/CBS poll found that 61 percent of Americans thought Medicare was "worth the cost" making it politically risky to implement the plan. The poll also found that 47 percent approved of turning Medicare into a private insurance program while 41 percent disapproved. A Gallup poll in the same month found an even split for deficit reduction plans with 44 percent of Americans supporting the Democratic plan while 43 supported the Ryan plan, although the same poll found that senior citizens preferred the Ryan plan over the Obama plan. As well, in a Washington Post/ABC poll found that 65 percent of Americans opposed the plan while 34 percent supported it.
In April 2011, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 50 percent of Americans wanted to keep Medicare the way it is while 46 percent favored turning it into a voucher system per the Ryan plan. Among seniors, 62 percent wanted to maintain Medicare while 30 percent favored turning it into a voucher program.