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.
[8] The 2013 proposal would have provided workers under the age of 55 (beginning in 2023) a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange.
[26] One example is Ryan recommended that the federal government not fund the Institute of Museum and Library Services and "shift the federal agency's responsibilities to the private sector in his 2015 fiscal year budget resolution"[27] such as "funded at the state and local level and augmented significantly by charitable contributions from the private sector".
[30] According to liberal columnist Ezra Klein when CBO estimates of benefit cuts are factored in, 80 percent or more of Americans oppose the plan.
[34] 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.
[39] A news analysis piece by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post stated that the proposal "relies on dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures".
[2] Economist and columnist Paul Krugman called it "ridiculous and heartless" due to a combination of income tax rate reductions (which he argued mainly benefit the wealthy) and large spending cuts that would affect the poor and middle classes.
1 goal—would do enormous damage to all Americans and make it even harder to wrestle down health care costs, the best way to deal with the country's long-term fiscal crisis.
"[42] The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, felt "The Ryan budget features strong, substantive, market-based reforms to the health entitlements and a solid, growth-oriented tax plan.
[44] Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, remarked on CNBC's Squawk Box that the House had ignored the recommendations made by the federal deficit commission.
Hoyer said, "This is exactly the same rhetoric, exactly the same kind of plan that was offered in 2001 and 2003, and it led to the deepest recession this country has seen; extraordinary loss of jobs and a tanking of the stock market.
"[39] Cantor said on the April 10 episode of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace: What we've said and what the Ryan budget calls for are spending targets.
As we know, the unfunded obligations on entitlement programs are really what are so daunting and causing global investors, as well as Americans, to doubt whether this country can deal with its fiscal challenges.
"[46][49][50] On an April 27, 2011 conference call with reporters Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that passage of the Ryan plan "would be one of the worst things to happen to this country.
This difference is crucial to understanding the Republican proposal, as the cost of health care is rising much faster than the consumer price index.
[44] Others point out that Members of Congress have what is called a "fair-share deal" as they do not bear the entire risk of increased costs because of health care inflation.
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, told NPR's Morning Edition that the reductions in Medicare spending would be "draconian".
He also faulted the effort for not including cuts to defense spending and tax increases, which Hoyer argued must be part of any serious budgetary reform.
[39] Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich called the plan "right wing social engineering," "radical change," and "too big of a jump.
[39] The Center for Economic and Policy Research Center for Economic and Policy Research has released a study, based largely on CBO calculations, suggesting that the Ryan Plan will add trillions of dollars to the cost of Medicare because of the lower efficiency of private insurance as compared to the current government program.
For services such as education, law enforcement, water treatment, and disaster response, states would lose over $247 billion in federal funding from 2013–2021.
The study also concluded that the plan would hurt economic recovery and job growth by forcing layoffs at the state and local levels of government.
[70] The Path has been criticized by some commentators and analysts for its allegedly unrealistic projections and assumptions about future levels of discretionary spending, tax revenue, health care costs, and unemployment.
[72] Conservative commentator Louis Woodhill has called Ryan's proposal "The Path to Austerity" because of its exclusive focus on spending rather than economic growth.
The proposal was authored by Paul Ryan and is intended to contrast with President Obama's stance on taxes and federal spending.
[3] The proposal was criticized by President Obama in a speech at an Associated Press luncheon on April 3, 2012, where he claimed the plan amounted to "thinly veiled social Darwinism".
In response, both Ryan and Romney stated that Obama had distorted the facts of the proposal, in particular its aim to reduce federal debt, and had used his criticism to distract from his own economic performance.
