House Set to Debate Paul Ryan's 2012 Budget

Obama is also going to announce his own plans for deficit reduction

April 12, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

Is the new Republican budget proposal a "path to prosperity" as it's titled, or, as the Democrats label it, a "road to ruin"? So far, the answer to that question depends on which side of the ideological street you're walking.

The House is set to begin debate this week on the GOP's 2012 budget, rolled out last week by the party's vanguard deficit hawk, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. Compared with the budget proposal President Obama unveiled in February, the chairman says his plan for next year would cut $6.2 trillion in spending and reduce deficits by $4.4 trillion over the next decade. But even in deficit-conscious Washington, the plan's upheaval of Medicare and Medicaid makes it a hard sell in Congress and the White House.

Ryan, who represents Wisconsin's First District, aims to drastically lower spending to start paying back the nation's public debt, which, according to the proposal, will reach 70 percent of the nation's entire economy this year and is expected to keep climbing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, his plan could lead the nation back to surplus by 2040. "America can still grow. America can still be prosperous. America can still be America. And that is what we are proposing with this path to prosperity," Ryan said in a committee meeting on the budget last Wednesday. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons about the budget and the deficit.]

Some of the plan's most controversial cuts come from reducing mandatory spending for government-run healthcare programs Medicare and Medicaid. The plan not only would repeal the entire 2010 healthcare reform law, it also would convert the Medicare program into a "premium-support payment" system, in which beneficiaries would get vouchers to pay for coverage through approved private insurers. He says the system is similar to the plan that now covers members of Congress and other federal employees. Ryan hopes that such a program would encourage seniors to think more carefully about how their Medicare dollars are spent. "What we're showing here is we can address the drivers of our debt—the entitlement programs—in a smart and gradual way right now," Ryan said.

Ryan says that his model for Medicare was built on a policy supported by founding director of the CBO Alice Rivlin, his co-chair on the healthcare task force of the president's fiscal commission. Yet Rivlin says that, while she supports the concept of premium support, the subsidy amount in Ryan's plan would not keep pace with the expected growth in healthcare costs over time. Also, Rivlin says she had only backed the premium-support model if it were offered as a secondary option to the current Medicare system. Ryan's plan will not offer a choice for new beneficiaries starting in 2022. "I don't think it is a viable plan at the growth rates he is proposing," Rivlin says. "It would be clearly shifting a lot of the risk to the elderly themselves."

Ryan insists that his version of Medicare reform is a way to "save" the soon-to-be-insolvent program, but Democrats frame it as an attempt to abolish Medicare altogether and place extra costs on seniors. The CBO confirms that the out-of-pocket costs for seniors will be greater under Ryan's proposal than under the current plan. "Privatizing Medicare and capping Medicaid won't reduce costs; it just shifts the burden to our seniors and our families," said Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Allyson Schwartz at the markup of the legislation last week. "This budget is a blatant attack on seniors, children, and middle-class families, and our future economic growth as a nation."

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Allyson Schwartz,
James Lankford,
Paul Ryan,
Republican Party,
Congress,
deficit and national debt,
healthcare reform,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Will it ever be possible for Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill to confront, in budgetary discussions and debate, our outrageous spending on "National Security"? I'm beginning to wonder why it is they just won't do more than pick around the edges of our annual $1 trillion (and always growing) expenditure on that grand collection of five: National Defense, Homeland Security, Nation Building, Veterans Affairs, and Foreign Aid designed to gain the cooperation of other countries. We spend more than the rest of the world COMBINED on that quintet, and we do so all because we project our power everywhere in the world, ending up in intervention after intervention, even outright wars.

Just how much spending is necessary on National Security? Enough to assure that we remain intervener-in-chief and retain top dog status at a time when we're the world's biggest debtor nation at $14.5 trillion and running an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion? Or just enough to assure that we have a strong National Defense? There's a huge difference, you know, particularly when we're showing eagerness to attack dreaded "entitlements" without doing the same with National Security, expenditures on which have been growing ever since the years following WWII.

Whatever the nature of the debate in the House, you'll not hear anyone comparing our spending on National Defense with China's, I'll bet. And that's because they spend just 18% of what the U.S. does on it per year--the country holding much of our national debt! You'll also not hear such tidbits of information like the fact that we outspend Great Britain 50 to 1 on Intelligence. Quite an extravagance for a country trying to cut spending!

Being SuperPower on call seemed tolerable enough when we were flush, running budget surpluses instead of huge deficits. Those who favor a strong America, like me, owe us all an explanation of what it is our government is up to in outspending the rest of the world COMBINED on National Security. They owe us an explanation of why foreign policy decisions have accumulated over the years to be one of the big drivers behind our national debt.

Do you think any of what I've just said will be part of what we'll hear in House debate?

Ron W. Smith of UT 4:01PM April 14, 2011

mr. ryan,s plan is little more than a ponzi scheme.to offer a senior citizen a voucher to purchase healthcare and wish them good luck is at best insane,and at it,s worst cruel.

the ryan plan is geared toward protecting the interest of the well off in our society prue and simple.

bruce b of NV 5:17PM April 13, 2011

Ryan proposed a new Republican Insurance Program for Seniors called Rest In Peace- R.I.P. This plan ensures Seniors will get only the healthcare they can afford. Don't worry there is a R.I.P.(B) for those who can afford it. This stands for Raise Insurance Premiums for the Bandit's bottom line. Seniors, don't forget to thank your Republican Congressman R.I.P. and R.I.P.(B) !

LossOfGravity of NJ 8:14PM April 12, 2011

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos