DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Changes to Medicare in the “Path to Prosperity” How Would the Federal Premium Support Payment Increase Each Year?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposed Changes to Medicare in the “Path to Prosperity” How Would the Federal Premium Support Payment Increase Each Year? PROPOSED CHANGES TO MEDICARE ProposedIN THEChanges “PATH to Medicare TO inPROS the “PathPERITY” to Prosperity” Overview and Key Questions OVERVIEW AND KEY QUESTIONS APRIL 2011 On April 5, 2011, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee, released a budget proposal, entitled The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise, which reduces federal spending over the long term.1 The proposal is projected to achieve a federal budget surplus by 2040, and would substantially reduce federal spending on major health programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Exchange subsidies by 2022.2 With Medicare spending now representing 15 percent of the federal budget, reducing federal Medicare spending is a key component of Chairman Ryan’s proposal. The proposal would reduce the growth in Medicare spending by capping the growth in expenditures per enrollee, converting Medicare from a defined benefit plan to a system of defined “premium support” payments, and by gradually raising the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67, beginning in 2022. The proposal would also repeal specified provisions of the 2010 health reform law.3 It would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and provisions to close the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage gap (the “doughnut hole”) by 2020. This policy brief focuses only on the provisions of the proposal that would directly affect Medicare, and the elderly and disabled people covered by the program. The proposal includes other changes that could also affect seniors and people with disabilities, most notably through the Medicaid program. The description is based on information in The Path to Prosperity, the letter dated April 5, 2011 from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which provides greater detail on the specific provisions in the plan, and subsequent information provided by the CBO on April 8, 2011.4 Proposal Would Convert Medicare into a “Premium Support” Program How Would the Proposal Change the Structure of the Medicare Program? The proposal would gradually transform Medicare into what is described as a “premium support system.” Beginning in 2022, all newly-eligible Medicare beneficiaries (i.e., individuals turning 65 as well as younger, disabled individuals becoming eligible for Medicare) would only have access to health coverage through private insurance plans, rather than through the current government-run Medicare program (i.e., traditional Medicare), or under a Medicare Advantage plan. Under the new premium support system, Medicare beneficiaries would be entitled to a payment from the federal government to help defray premiums and other health care costs under the plan. The government would make payments directly to private health plans on behalf of Medicare- eligible enrollees, rather than pay hospitals, physicians, and other medical providers directly for the services provided to their Medicare-eligible patients, as is currently the case. If the government payments to plans on behalf of enrollees were insufficient to cover premiums and/or other costs, beneficiaries would be responsible for additional costs. In other words, Medicare would no longer provide coverage for medical care, but instead provide a “subsidy” toward the purchase of a private health insurance plan. THE KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION PROGRAM ON MEDICARE POLICY Under the premium support system, beneficiaries would be able to choose among competing private plans offered in their area through a new Medicare Exchange. Plans offered through the Medicare Exchange would be required to enroll any Medicare beneficiary who wishes to enroll, without regard to health status or income. It is not clear whether beneficiaries could apply their government contribution to a private plan offered outside the Medicare Exchange. Elderly and disabled people who are entitled to Medicare before 2022 (generally individuals currently ages 55 and older or those with disabilities covered by Medicare before 2022) could choose to either remain in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, or enroll in a private plan. While the average costs for beneficiaries in traditional Medicare would increase if the younger, healthier beneficiaries enroll in private plans, the proposal would protect the older, sicker beneficiaries in the traditional Medicare program from the higher premiums that would otherwise result from higher average costs. What Benefits Would Be Offered by Private Plans to Medicare Beneficiaries? The proposal would require private plans in the new Medicare Exchanges to comply with “a standard for benefits” that would be approved by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which oversees the benefits for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).5 If FEHBP is the model for this approach, OPM would generally require plans to include benefits to cover certain costs, and would review proposed changes in benefits from one year to the next, but would be unlikely to require a uniform or specified defined set of benefits.6 This approach differs from current law, which entitles beneficiaries to a defined set of benefits, or to benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent if offered by a Medicare Advantage plan. Because payments to plans incorporate costs associated with Part D, the stand-alone Medicare Part D marketplace presumably would no longer exist. How Would the Proposal Set Government Payments to Private Plans? Under the proposal, the payment made on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries to private plans would be based on projected average per capita Medicare spending in 2022 that would be adjusted for health status, age, and income. According to the CBO, this approach would result in higher costs for beneficiaries than they would otherwise incur under the traditional Medicare program. Net federal premium support payments for a typical 65-year old in 2022 would be $8,000, or 39 percent of Medicare spending per enrollee.7 Government contributions to plans would be risk-adjusted and thus higher for beneficiaries who are older and/or in poorer health. Government contributions would be lower for higher-income Medicare beneficiaries: payments to plans would be reduced by 70 percent for beneficiaries in the top 2 percent of the Medicare population income distribution, and by 50 percent for those in the next 6 percent of the income distribution. Thus, government payments on behalf of enrollees would be lower for Medicare beneficiaries with relatively high incomes, resulting in these beneficiaries paying higher premiums. The proposal does not specify whether government contributions would be adjusted for geographic variation in costs. Given well-documented variations in Medicare costs by geography, the absence of a geographic adjustment could have significant implications for high-cost areas of the country, such as Miami or Los Angeles. Page 2 Proposed Changes to Medicare in the “Path to Prosperity” How Would the Federal Premium Support Payment Increase Each Year? The government contribution would increase annually, based on the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U). This differs from other proposals, such as the Rivlin-Ryan plan, released in November 2010, that proposed to increase federal Medicare costs by the growth in per capita Gross Domestic Product plus one percent (GDP+1%), which allows for a somewhat higher rate of annual growth than inflation.8 These growth rates are lower than historical growth in Medicare spending. For example, the average annual growth rate in Medicare per capita spending surpassed the average annual growth rate in the GDP and inflation between 1985 and 2009 (6.7% vs. 2.9%), and is projected to grow faster than inflation through 2021 (nearly 3% vs. 2%).9 By constraining the growth in Medicare payments per enrollee at inflation and by keeping growth below projected Medicare expenditures per person, the proposal limits the financial exposure of the federal government and achieves savings over the long term, but is projected to expose beneficiaries to increasingly larger out-of-pocket costs and risk over time. How Would the Proposal Affect Beneficiaries’ Costs? Beneficiaries enrolled in private plans would be expected to pay premiums and other costs in excess of the federal premium support payment made to the plan on behalf of the Medicare enrollee. According to the CBO analysis, the total cost of providing health care benefits (premium and other costs) to a typical 65-year old in a private plan would be about $20,500 in 2022 (Figure 1).10 The government would contribute $8,000 or 39 percent toward the total cost, and the remaining $12,500 would be paid by the beneficiary. The CBO projects that out-of-pocket costs for the typical 65-year old would be more than twice as large under the proposal than under traditional Medicare ($5,630) in 2022, because the cost of providing benefits is greater under private 11 plans than under traditional Medicare. FIGURE 1 Federal and Medicare Beneficiary Contributions to Total Health Care Spending for a Typical 65-Year-Old, 2022 Current Medicare vs. “Path to Prosperity” Proposal Total: $20,500 Total: $14,760 Total: $13,530 $12,500 Beneficiary’s $6,260 Share of Spending $5,630 (premiums and other out-of-pocket costs) Government’s $7,900 $8,500 $8,000 Share of Spending Current Medicare Current Medicare "Path to Prosperity" (Extended Baseline) (Alternative Fiscal Proposal Scenario) NOTE: Numbers are rounded. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. Beneficiary health
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Impact of Mitt Romney's Policies on Essential Programs for People Of
    The Impact of Mitt Romney’s Policies on Essential Programs for People of Color Vanessa Cárdenas August 16, 2012 Introduction In various speeches this election season, including at the NAACP Annual Conference1 and the Latino Coalition Annual Economic Summit,2 former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been making the case that when it comes to people of color, his economic policies are the answer to their economic wellbeing. Yet closer analyses of his stated positions on key issues that matter to these communities do not bear this out. As has already been widely reported, communities of color have suffered and continue suffering the brunt of the effects of the Great Recession. African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and subgroups within the Asian American community continue to lag far behind their white counterparts on key economic indicators. And while it is true that these communities have historically faced significant economic challenges, the Great Recession pushed them even lower on the ladder of opportunity and farther from the American Dream. How communities of color fare today and down the road matters greatly, not just for their own sake, but also because they are the future of our nation. Today the majority of children under one year old3 are kids of color and in 10 states4 people of color make up the majority of the population. The U.S. Census Bureau projects5 that by the year 2042 there won’t be an ethnic majority in our nation. It is therefore urgent that our next president not only understands the depth of the challenges communities of color face, but even more importantly that he puts forth policy solutions that match the urgency of the moment.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget Plan), the Income Base from Which the Federal Government Draws Its Taxes Grows Significantly
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of Constitutional and Legal Authority Summary of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution I. A Choice of Two Futures .................................................................................... 9 Introduction Components of the Federal Budget The Crushing Burden of Debt A Reform Agenda for the U.S. Government II. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution ................................................................... 27 Efficient, Effective and Responsible Government.................................................................................... 28 Providing for the Common Defense Streamlining Other Government Agencies Restraining the Growth of Government by Repealing the Health Care Law Ending Corporate Welfare Changing Washington’s Culture of Spending Strengthening the Social Safety Net ......................................................................................................... 38 Repairing a Broken Medicaid System Stopping the Abuse of Medicaid by Repealing the Health Care Law Protecting Assistance for Those in Need Preparing the Workforce for a 21st Century Economy Fulfilling the Mission of Health and Retirement Security for All Americans .................................... 44 Saving Medicare Stopping the Raid on Medicare by Repealing the Health Care Law Advancing Social Security Reforms Pro-Growth Tax Reform .............................................................................................................................. 50 Simplifying the Tax Code for Individuals Stopping
    [Show full text]
  • The FBI Investigated Missing Money from Chabot's Campaign After His Campaign Could Not Account for More Than $120,000. On
    The FBI investigated missing money from Chabot’s campaign after his campaign could not account for more than $120,000. On top of that, Chabot has used his political organization to enrich his family. But when it comes to helping your family pay the bills, Chabot has voted 15 times to increase health care costs and take away protections for people with pre-existing conditions in Ohio, like asthma, cancer and diabetes. The Chabot Campaign Released A Justice Department Letter Stating That An FBI Fraud Investigation Into Former Chabot Campaign Manager Jamie Schwartz After $123,000 Went Missing From Chabot’s Campaign. “The campaign of U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Westwood, released correspondence from the Justice Department that confirmed for the first time that Chabot’s former chief political aide, Jamie Schwartz, is under investigation for fraud. […] The July 21 Justice Department letter to the Chabot campaign’s attorneys in Washington, D.C., Jones Day, discusses a 2011 Jeep Wrangler seized by the FBI in its investigation of Schwartz. ‘An investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has determined that Steve Chabot for Congress is a victim of the violation of law which resulted in the seizure and forfeiture of the above-referenced property,’ the letter, signed by Stephen Jobe, chief of the department’s legal forfeiture unit, states. […] About $123,000 went missing from the campaign. About a year ago, Schwartz closed his consulting business and vanished from the local political world. He could not be reached for comment. Schwartz has not been charged with wrongdoing. The Justice Department letter said the amount of forfeited funds “available for remission” is $13,255.20.
    [Show full text]
  • The Path to Prosperity
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of Constitutional and Legal Authority Summary of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution I. A Choice of Two Futures .................................................................................... 9 Introduction Components of the Federal Budget The Crushing Burden of Debt A Reform Agenda for the U.S. Government II. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution ................................................................... 27 Efficient, Effective and Responsible Government.................................................................................... 28 Providing for the Common Defense Streamlining Other Government Agencies Restraining the Growth of Government by Repealing the Health Care Law Ending Corporate Welfare Changing Washington’s Culture of Spending Strengthening the Social Safety Net ......................................................................................................... 38 Repairing a Broken Medicaid System Stopping the Abuse of Medicaid by Repealing the Health Care Law Protecting Assistance for Those in Need Preparing the Workforce for a 21st Century Economy Fulfilling the Mission of Health and Retirement Security for All Americans .................................... 44 Saving Medicare Stopping the Raid on Medicare by Repealing the Health Care Law Advancing Social Security Reforms Pro-Growth Tax Reform .............................................................................................................................. 50 Simplifying the Tax Code for Individuals Stopping
    [Show full text]
  • The Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution
    House Budget Committee | April 2014 2 The Path to Prosperity Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution House Budget Committee Table of Contents I. Summary………………………………………………………………….………..………5 II. Introduction .........................................................................................................7 III. Economic Growth, Jobs, and Opportunity………………..….…………..……..…….15 IV. Limited, Effective Government.................................................………..……….…21 V. Pro-Growth Tax Reform…………….…………………………………….….……….…81 VI. Long-Term Budget Outlook…………………..……...……….……….……..….……..85 Appendix I: Summary Tables Appendix II: Policy Statements House Budget Committee | April 2014 3 House Budget Committee | April 2014 4 The Path to Prosperity: A Responsible, Balanced Budget The House Republican Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Washington owes the American people a responsible, balanced budget. This is a plan to balance the budget in ten years and create jobs. This budget will achieve the following: • Expand opportunity by growing the economy. • Provide our troops the training, equipment, and compensation they need. • Repeal Obamacare to clear the way for patient-centered reform. • Provide families with a fair, simple tax code to boost wages and create jobs. • Secure seniors’ retirement by strengthening Medicare and other vital programs. • Strengthen the safety net and help people get back on their feet. • Restore fairness by cutting spending and combatting cronyism. Balance the Budget. Grow the Economy. The House Republican budget cuts spending by $5.1 trillion over the next ten years. It targets wasteful Washington spending and reforms the drivers of the debt. This budget stops spending money we don’t have. A balanced budget will foster a healthier economy and help create jobs. This will ensure the next generation inherits a stronger, more prosperous America. House Budget Committee | April 2014 5 Key Components of the House Republican Budget: Protect the Nation The first job of the federal government is to protect the country from threats at home and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Health Care Changes in the FY2014 Budget Proposal Offered by House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan
    Overview of Health Care Changes in the FY2014 Budget Proposal Offered by House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan Patricia A. Davis Specialist in Health Care Financing Alison Mitchell Analyst in Health Care Financing Bernadette Fernandez Specialist in Health Care Financing March 22, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43017 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Health Care Changes in the FY2014 Budget Proposal Offered by Chairman Ryan Summary On March 12, 2013, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released the chairman’s mark of the FY2014 House budget resolution together with his report entitled The Path to Prosperity: A Responsible Balanced Budget, which outlines his budgetary objectives. The House Budget Committee considered and amended the chairman’s mark on March 13, 2013, and voted to report the budget resolution to the full House. H.Con.Res. 25 was introduced in the House March 15, 2013, and was accompanied by the committee report (H.Rept. 113-17). H.Con.Res. 25 was agreed to by the House on March 21, 2013. A budget resolution provides general budgetary parameters; however, it is not a law. Changes to programs that are assumed or suggested by the budget resolution would still need to be enacted in separate legislation. Chairman Ryan’s budget proposal, as outlined in his report and in the committee report, suggests short-term and long-term changes to federal health care programs including to Medicare, Medicaid, and the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended (ACA, P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of Constitutional and Legal Authority .....................................................4 A Contrast in Visions ..............................................................................................5 Introduction By House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan ................................7 I. A Blueprint for American Renewal ................................................................11 II. Providing for the Common Defense ..............................................................17 III. Restoring Economic Freedom ......................................................................23 IV. Repairing the Social Safety Net ....................................................................35 V. Strengthening Health and Retirement Security ............................................45 VI. Pro-Growth Tax Reform ...............................................................................57 VII. Changing Washington’s Culture of Spending .................................................69 VIII. Lifting the Crushing Burden of Debt .............................................................75 Appendix I: Summary Tables .................................................................................87 Appendix II: Reprioritizing Sequester Savings ........................................................93 STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AUTHORITY Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate funds from the Treasury, pay the obligations of and raise revenue
    [Show full text]
  • Plan Competition and Consumer Choice in Medicare: the Case for Premium Support
    Plan Competition and Consumer Choice in Medicare: The Case for Premium Support Joseph Antos American Enterprise Institute Part of the RWJF/AEI series: Preserving Medicare for Future Generations: Market-Based Approaches to Reform APRIL 2013 2 Plan Competition and Consumer Choice in Medicare: The Case for Premium Support edicare provides health coverage projected spending rising much faster than Mfor 50 million seniors and disabled revenues even after the economy recovers.2 people. The program is projected to spend The commission pointed to the need to slow nearly $600 billion in 2013, making it the down federal health spending as a key part third-largest category of federal spending of the plan to put the nation back on the after Social Security and defense. Over the path to fiscal health, observing that “federal next two decades, 76 million members of health care spending represents our single the baby boom generation will shift from largest fiscal challenge over the long-run.”3 working and paying the taxes that support Medicare to retiring and receiving benefits. Congress has adopted policies intended to That massive demographic shift, coupled slow Medicare spending. The Affordable with the continuing trend toward greater Care Act (ACA) includes substantial use of increasingly expensive medical reductions in Medicare’s payment rates for services, will put unprecedented strain on health care providers. Previous legislation the US ability to finance the program. imposed a 25 percent reduction in Medicare physician fees that is to take effect on Medicare has faced fiscal challenges almost January 1, 2014.4 from the program’s inception.
    [Show full text]
  • A Buffett Rule for Social Security and Medicare: Phasing out Benefits for High Income Retirees
    Penn State Law eLibrary Journal Articles Faculty Works 1-1-2012 A Buffett Rule foro S cial Security and Medicare: Phasing Out Benefits for High Income Retirees Samuel C. Thompson Jr. Penn State Law Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/fac_works Part of the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Samuel C. Thompson Jr., A Buffett Rule for Social Security and Medicare: Phasing Out Benefits of r High Income Retirees, 50 U. Louisville L. Rev. 603 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A BUFFETT RULE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE: PHASING OUT BENEFITS FOR HIGH INCOME RETIREES Samuel C. Thompson, Jr. I. INTRODUCTION A. Three Deficit and Debt Proposals The concern with the federal budget deficits' and the growing federal debe has brought forth three principal proposals: (1) the December 2010 proposal by the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the Deficit Commission Proposal);3 (2) the April 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, The Path to Prosperity, advanced by Congressman Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on the Budget (the Ryan Proposal);4 and (3) the proposal of President Obama set out in a speech he gave at George Washington University on . I would like to thank the following for their helpful comments on this paper: the faculty members at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law who participated in a forum on the paper; Professor Richard Kaplan of the University of Illinois College of Law, an expert in income tax and elder law; Professor Joel Handler of the UCLA School of Law; and my research assistants at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law: Stephen Anderson, Marc Boiron, Grace Hahn, Jake Mattinson, and Becky Sue Thompson.
    [Show full text]
  • Retiree Benefits One Year After Health Reform Susan E
    Annals of Health Law Volume 21 Article 10 Issue 1 Special Edition 2012 2012 No Good News: Retiree Benefits One Year after Health Reform Susan E. Cancelosi Wayne State University Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/annals Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Susan E. Cancelosi No Good News: Retiree Benefits One Year after Health Reform, 21 Annals Health L. 89 (2012). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/annals/vol21/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annals of Health Law by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cancelosi: No Good News: Retiree Benefits One Year after Health Reform No Good News: Retiree Benefits One Year after Health Reform Susan E. Cancelosi* I. INTRODUCTION Employment-based retiree health benefits provide critical coverage for at least fifteen million individuals in the United States.' That coverage, however, has declined sharply over the past two decades2 as employers have struggled to maintain health insurance for even their active employees.3 With the passage of health reform legislation in March 2010,4 . Assistant Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School; B.A./B.B.A., Southern Methodist University; J.D., Cornell Law School; LL.M., Health Law, University of Houston Law Center. 1. Estimates of the number of retirees and dependents with employment-based health coverage vary considerably, especially with regard to individuals who are not yet Medicare- eligible.
    [Show full text]
  • Romney's Paltry Education Plan
    Romney’s Paltry Education Plan Republican Presidential Candidate’s Plan for Our Nation’s Schools Is Short on Detail, Long on Rhetoric Jeremy Ayers August 2012 Introduction Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been running for president for six years and he still doesn’t have a detailed education plan. He rarely talks about education on the stump, and when he does, he rails against federal spending rather than discussing ways to improve struggling schools or the lives of disadvantaged students. Gov. Romney’s pick of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to be his running mate solidified that his stance on education matches his economic vision: cut programs for the disadvantaged in order to pay for benefits to the wealthy. Gov. Romney’s main education idea is to turn federal money for disadvantaged students into vouchers that could be spent in private schools. This brief outlines the few, mostly bad ideas Gov. Romney has put forward on educa- tion, including his mixed record as governor of Massachusetts and his flip-flopping record as long-term presidential candidate. Americans do and should expect more from those who want to govern the nation. When two-thirds of students are not reaching grade-level and one-third fail to even graduate high school, the stakes are too high to be short on big ideas. The Romney plan: Where’s the plan? Gov. Romney unveiled his education plan—“A Chance for Every Child”—in May 2012. At the time he said education is central to the American Dream and represents the civil rights issue of our era.1 But despite his preamble, Gov.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Study Committee
    HonestSolutionsHonestSolutionsHone stSolutionsHonestSolutionsHonestSol utionsHonestSolutionsHonestSolution sHonestSolutionsHonestSolutionsHon estSolutionsHonestSolutionsHonestSol utionsHonestSolutionsHonestSolution sHonestSolutionsHonestSolutionsHonREPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE estSolutionsHonestSolutionsHonestSolHONEST SOLUTIONS utionsHonestSolutionsHonestSolution sHonestSolutionsHonestSolutionsHonFISCAL YEAR 2012 estSolutionsHonestSolutionsHonestSolBUDGET utionsHonestSolutionsHonestSolution sHonestSolutionsHonestSolutionsHon estSolutionsHonestSolutionsHonestSol April 2011 utionsHonestSolutionsHonestSolution rsc.jordan.house.gov sHonestSolutionsHonestSolutionsHon REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE | HONEST SOLUTIONS: FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 HONEST SOLUTIONS FOR THE CHALLENGES AHEAD 4 CHAPTER 2 SPENDING 13 CHAPTER 3 TAXES 26 CHAPTER 4 BUDGET PROCESS 28 APPENDIX SUMMARY TABLES 31 2 REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE | HONEST SOLUTIONS: FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET 3 REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE | HONEST SOLUTIONS: FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET CHAPTER 1 HONEST SOLUTIONS FOR THE CHALLENGES AHEAD AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN The challenges we face are clear—as are the PEOPLE FROM THE REPUBLICAN STUDY steps we must take to right our course. We COMMITTEE (RSC). face a once‐in‐a‐generation opportunity to ur nation faces serious economic and improve the effectiveness of our government fiscal challenges that must be by reining in unnecessary and wasteful Oaddressed. The Path to Prosperity put spending. We need a leaner, more efficient forward by
    [Show full text]