VAN HOLLEN: Romney-Ryan Wrong for the Middle Class

“Congressman Ryan may have crafted a reputation as a straight talker, but we already know that we won’t hear much straight talk tonight about the Romney-Ryan plan for America. That’s because he doesn’t want to talk about how the Romney-Ryan ticket would give trillions of dollars in tax breaks weighted to the wealthiest Americans, which they would pay for by raising taxes on the middle class, turning Medicare into a voucher program, and making deep cuts to critical investments like education, energy, and infrastructure. We know that this isn’t a recipe for economic growth or a stronger middle class. It’s the same formula that undermined the middle class and wrecked the economy in the first place. Americans can’t afford Romney Economics.” – Congressman Chris Van Hollen

FACES OF THE RYAN BUDGET

Key Points

SENIORS

AARP CEO: FY2013 Ryan Budget “Jeopardizes The Health And Economic Security Of Older Americans.” “On behalf of over 38 million members and other Americans who are age 50 and older, AARP is writing to express serious concerns with the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. While the House Republican budget proposal offers ideas for confronting our nation’s deficits and debt, AARP believes the proposal lacks balance, jeopardizes the health and economic security of older Americans, and puts at risk the bipartisan agreement on FY 2013 discretionary spending levels included in last year’s Budget Control Act.” [A. Barry Rand, AARP, Letter To Members of Congress, 3/21/12]

WOMEN

The Ryan Budget Would Increase Taxes For 12 Million Women, Including 4 Million Single Mothers.  According to the White House’s Obama Administration Record for Women and Girls, The Ryan Budget would roll back President Obama’s expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, resulting in a tax increase for 12 million women – including 4 million single mothers. [Obama Administration Record for Women and Girls]

STUDENTS

The Ryan Budget Would Mean “Steep Domestic Spending Cuts Would Push 200,000 Children From Head Start.” “But as more information emerged on the Republican budget, opposition continued to grow. Under questioning, the Republican staff director of the budget committee, Austin Smythe, said the budget was likely to cut transportation financing by $40 billion to $50 billion in the coming fiscal year alone. White House officials said steep domestic spending cuts would push 200,000 children from Head Start, while denying access to food assistance to 1.8 million infants, children and pregnant and post-partum women.” [New York Times, 3/22/12]

If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WhiteHouse.gov, 3/21/12]

VETERANS

The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops Criticized Ryan’s Budget For Its Cuts To Veterans Programs Run Out Of The Department Of Housing And Urban Development. “The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is criticizing the House Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan for cutting food stamps and other assistance programs for the poor. [… ] In joint letters to the House and Senate sent on March 3, the bishops addressed the ‘moral and human dimensions of the federal budget,’ and their fear that pressure to reduce the deficit would wipe out Pell Grants, workforce training and development, nutrition assistance, low-income tax credits and safe and affordable housing for the less fortunate. A letter dated April 4 went to the House Appropriations Committee and focused solely on potential cuts to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs that benefit the poor, elderly, veterans and those with disabilities.” [The Hill, 4/18/12]

 

Ryan Budget and Seniors

THE RYAN PLAN WOULD END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT

AARP CEO: FY2013 Ryan Budget “Jeopardizes The Health And Economic Security Of Older Americans.” “On behalf of over 38 million members and other Americans who are age 50 and older, AARP is writing to express serious concerns with the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. While the House Republican budget proposal offers ideas for confronting our nation’s deficits and debt, AARP believes the proposal lacks balance, jeopardizes the health and economic security of older Americans, and puts at risk the bipartisan agreement on FY 2013 discretionary spending levels included in last year’s Budget Control Act.” [A. Barry Rand, AARP, Letter To Members of Congress, 3/21/12]

Ryan’s Plan Would End Guaranteed Benefits For Medicare. “Ryan's plan calls for an end to the guaranteed benefit in Medicare and replaces it with a system that would give vouchers to recipients to pay for health insurance.” [Reuters, 8/12/12]

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: President Obama’s Argument That Romney Would “End Medicare As We Know It” Is “Undeniably True.” “Today President Obama talks Medicare in Florida and argues that Mitt Romney will ‘end Medicare as we know it.’ The claim is undeniably true, though keep in mind that ‘as we know it’ is a fairly elastic term.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 7/19/12]

Ryan’s Plan Turns Medicare Into A Voucher Program And Raises Costs For Seniors

THE RYAN’S PLAN WILL TURN MEDICARE INTO A VOUCHER PROGRAM

Bloomberg: “Ryan’s Budget Bill Also Would End Traditional Medicare By Capping Spending And Offer[ing] Vouchers To Buy Private Insurance.” [Bloomberg, 8/13/12]

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: The Romney-Ryan Plan Would “Transform Medicare Into A System Driven By Private Insurance Vouchers.” “President Clinton promised to ‘end welfare as we know it,’ which didn’t mean simply zeroing out the program but transforming it into something fundamentally different. That’s what the Romney-Ryan plan to transform Medicare into a system driven by private insurance vouchers would do.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 7/19/12]

Ryan Plan Has Medicare “Compete With Private Plans And Giving Seniors A Voucher To Choose The Plan They Like.” “The plan introduced Tuesday came from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who revised key elements of his Medicare plan from last year, but still proposes having the federal program compete with private plans and giving seniors a voucher to choose the plan they like. ‘If we allow entitlement politics - fear that your adversaries will turn your reforms into a political weapon used against you, and we cow to that - then America is going to have a debt crisis,’ the Wisconsin Republican said.” [Washington Times, 3/21/12]

RYAN’S VOUCHER PLAN WILL RAISE COSTS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE RETIREES

Los Angeles Times Headline: “Seniors Would Pay The Price Of Ryan’s Plan To Overhaul Medicare.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/13/12]

AARP: Ryan’s “Premium Support” Plan For Medicare “Would Likely Price Out Traditional Medicare As A Viable Option.” “The premium support method described in the proposal – unlike private plan options that currently exist in Medicare -- would likely ‘price out’ traditional Medicare as a viable option, thus rendering the choice of traditional Medicare as a false promise.” [A. Barry Rand, AARP, Letter To Members of Congress, 3/21/12]

The Romney-Ryan Health Care Plan Would Harm All Seniors. “Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan claim that no one over 55 will be affected by their health care plan. This claim is false. Their plan would harm all seniors.” [Center for American Progress, 8/24/12]

According To A Report By Harvard Economist David Cutler And The Center For American Progress, Repealing The Affordable Care Act Would Increase Retirement Costs By $11,100 For The Average 65-Year-Old And $18,600 For The Average 55-Year-Old. “If Romney becomes president and repeals the Affordable Care Act as promised, then retirement would cost $11,100 more for the average 65-year-old and $18,600 more for the average 55-year-old because of higher Medicare premiums and drug costs, according to a report from Harvard economist David Cutler, an Obamacare architect, and the Center for American Progress.” [Huffington Post, 8/27/12]

ABC News Fact Check: Under Ryan’s Medicare Plan, “Some Patients Would Have To Choose Between Paying For Better Coverage And Having More Money For Food And Other Items.” “Even if Ryan’s plan isn’t a ‘cut,’ Ted Marmor, professor emeritus of public policy and management at Yale School of Management, and Feder are worried Ryan’s plan will burden Medicare beneficiaries by giving the government a smaller role in American social affairs. ‘What Ryan is trying to do, and what I think more orthodox free market types have at the back of their minds is the view that medical care is actually just like a lot of other consumer services,’ Marmor said, but it’s not. He said providing Medicare vouchers to pay competing private insurance companies will shift the risk and increased costs for care from Medicare to the patient. Some patients would have to choose between paying for better coverage and having more money for food and other items. ‘If the bill for the hospital turns out to be much higher than expected, and the Medicare client had opted for a larger cost-sharing plan in exchange for not paying for wider coverage, they will face much bigger bills,’ Marmor said.” [Fact Check, ABC News, 8/15/12]

New York Times Editorial: Ryan’s Plan Would Turn Medicare Into A Voucher System And “Would Leave Older Americans On Average With $6,400 In Extra Costs By 2022, According To The Congressional Budget Office.” “Most voters know little about Mr. Ryan. Those who have heard of him are probably most familiar with his Medicare plan, which would turn the program into a voucher system that would pay beneficiaries a fixed amount for their medical care, leaving them on their own if the voucher did not cover their costs. This notion so alarmed the public last year that Mr. Ryan was forced to backtrack and leave the existing Medicare system as an option. Even so, the plan would leave older Americans on average with $6,400 in extra costs by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/13/12]

 

The Ryan Budget Would Repeal Obamacare, Weakening Medicare And Increasing Costs For Seniors

ROMNEY AND RYAN VOWED TO REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, WHICH EXTENDED THE SOLVENCY OF THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND BY EIGHT YEARS

Romney Said President Obama Was “Taking $716 Billion From The Medicare Trust Fund To Finance Obamacare; A New Risky Federal Takeover Of Health Care” And Vowed “Restore That $716 Billion.” Romney: “You know, the president, when he was campaigning in Denver, Colorado, four years ago, said that Medicare was on the pathway to become bankrupt. Yet, he's taking $716 billion from the Medicare trust fund to finance Obamacare; a new risky federal takeover of health care. My commitment is, if I become president, I'm going to restore that $716 billion to the Medicare trust fund so that current seniors can know that trust fund is not being raided and we’re going to make sure and get Medicare on track to be solvent long-term on a permanent basis.” [This Morning, CBS, 8/15/12]

Romney Spokeswoman Andrea Saul: “‘The Idea That Restoring Funding To Medicare Could Somehow Hasten Its Bankruptcy Is On Its Face Absurd.” [New York Times, 8/21/12]

Washington Post’s Wonk Blog: If The Romney Ryan Campaign Restore The Funding To Medicare Like They Say “Then Their Budget Math Just Got Completely Impossible.”  “The Romney/Ryan campaign is aware of the difficulties in their argument, and so they’ve introduced a new wrinkle. They told Avik Roy, who also serves as a health adviser to the campaign, that “A Romney-Ryan Administration will restore the funding to Medicare.” If that’s true, then their budget math just got completely impossible, as I’ll explain in a coming post.”  [Washington Post, Wonk Blog, 8/14/12]

The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Trustees annual report says that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is now projected to remain solvent until 2024. Without the reforms in the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare HI Trust Fund would expire in just five years – in 2016.  The report issued today shows these reforms added eight years of solvency.” [Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 05/13/11]

New York Times Editorial:  Romney And Ryan Claimed Obamacare “Would Eviscerate Medicare When In Fact The Law Should Shore Up The Program’s Finances.”  “Republican attacks on President Obama’s plans for Medicare are growing more heated and inaccurate by the day. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made statements last week implying that the Affordable Care Act would eviscerate Medicare when in fact the law should shore up the program’s finances.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]

RYAN’S REPEAL OF HEALTH CARE REFORM WOULD ELIMINATE SEVERAL NEW BENEFITS FOR SENIORS ON  MEDICARE AND RAISE CO-PAYMENTS AND PREMIUMS

PolitiFact: While Ryan’s Medicare Voucher Plan Would Not Affect Current Seniors, He And Romney Have Also Pledged To Repeal Health Care Reform, Which Includes “Several New Benefits For Medicare.” “We know Ryan and Romney are pushing for Medicare reforms that would spare beneficiaries 55 and over. Their proposals would create voucher-like credits for future retirees to shop for their own plans, either traditional Medicare or a private plan, starting in 2023. If Ryan were talking only about this part of the plan, he'd be correct. But Romney and Ryan have also pledged to ‘repeal and replace’ the Affordable Care Act, which Ryan attacked several times during his comments. The health law included several new benefits for Medicare.” [PolitiFact, 8/24/12]

Marilyn Moon Of The American Institutes For Research Calculated That Eliminating The Medicare Savings In Health Care Reform Would Raise Co-Payments And Premiums By $342 A Year On Average Over 10 Years, Rising To $342 By 2022. “Romney has said he will replenish $716 billion in Medicare spending reductions in the health care law over the next decade. Some analysts say reinstating the savings will will drive up premiums for Medicare Part B beneficiaries, reported the New York Times on Aug. 21, 2012. Premiums are pegged to Medicare’s overall costs, so when costs go up, premiums go up. Marilyn Moon, vice president and director of the health program at the American Institutes for Research, used official data to compute how out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries might increase. We reached Moon, and she reviewed her methodology with us. She calculated that restoring the Medicare spending would raise co-payments and premiums by by $342 a year on average over the next 10 years. By 2022, the annual increase would rise to $577.” [PolitiFact, 8/24/12]

PolitiFact: Ryan’s Assurance On Medicare “Does Not Take Into Account One Very Large Elephant In The Room: The Federal Health Care Law […] Repealing That Law Would Take Away Benefits From Current Enrollees.” “Ryan wants seniors to know his and Romney’s Medicare plan ‘does not affect your benefits.’  Indeed, that’s the case for their Medicare reform ideas, which would not affect people currently 55 and older. But his assurance does not take into account one very large elephant in the room: the federal health care law, which alters Medicare primarily by extending more benefits and savings. Romney and Ryan want to ‘repeal and replace Obamacare,’ but they haven’t said with what. Repealing the law would take away benefits for current enrollees.” [PolitiFact, 8/24/12]

PolitiFact Said It Was “Unrealistic To Assure Seniors Their Medicare Provisions Wouldn’t Change Under A Romney-Ryan Administration” And Rated Ryan’s Claim “Half True.” “Some experts say it’s unrealistic to expect that level of policy detail. Maybe so, but until the leaders expound upon their plans for closing the doughnut hole for prescription drugs, as well as a number of other Affordable Care Act provisions that would disappear with repeal, we think it’s unrealistic to assure seniors their Medicare provisions wouldn’t change under a Romney-Ryan administration. We rate his claim Half True.” [PolitiFact, 8/24/12]

THE RYAN BUDGET WILL SLASH MEDICAID LEAVING MILLIONS OF SENIORS FOOTING THE BILL FOR NURSING HOME CARE

Ryan Budget Would Slash Medicaid, Which “Funds Nursing-Home Care And Other Benefits For 6 Million U.S. Seniors.” “While the Republican vice-presidential candidate is careful to avoid touching Medicare benefits for anyone at or near retirement, his budget would impose immediate cuts to Medicaid, the health-care program for the poor that funds nursing-home care and other benefits for 6 million U.S. seniors.” [Bloomberg, 8/15/12]

Medicaid “Covers More Than Two-Thirds Of All Nursing-Home Residents In The U.S.” “The 6 million seniors who are Medicaid beneficiaries consume an outsized share of its budget -- about 23 percent of spending in 2009. That’s primarily because nursing-home care is so expensive. The program covers more than two-thirds of all nursing-home residents in the U.S., according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.” [Bloomberg, 8/15/12]

Ryan and Women

 

The Ryan Budget Raises Taxes On Millions Of Working Women To Pay For Tax Cuts For Millionaires

The Ryan Budget Would Increase Taxes For 12 Million Women, Including 4 Million Single Mothers.  According to the White House’s Obama Administration Record for Women and Girls, The Ryan Budget would roll back President Obama’s expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, resulting in a tax increase for 12 million women – including 4 million single mothers. [Obama Administration Record for Women and Girls]

The President Extended The Earned Income Tax Credit The Child Tax Credit, Which “Benefitted An Estimated 12 Million Women – 4 Million Of Them Single Mothers.  “In the Recovery Act, the President extended expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for larger families and reduced the marriage penalty, benefiting over 7 million people and making the Child Tax Credit (CTC) available to more low income families, benefiting 14 million children.  In December 2010, the President signed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The expansions in the EITC and the CTC that were extended as part of this legislation benefitted an estimated 12 million women – 4 million of them single mothers.”  [Obama Administration Record for Women and Girls]

NOW President: Ryan Budget Takes From Women (Who Are Overrepresented Among Poor And Middle Class) And Gives To Wealthy. “The first thing women should know about the Romney-Ryan budget is that it has been called the single largest transfer of wealth from middle- and low-income earners to millionaires and billionaires in our country's history. Since women are over-represented in the ranks of middle- and low-income earners, not to mention drastically under-represented among billionaires, it's fair to say the Romney-Ryan budget disproportionately takes from women to give, overwhelmingly, to people who look (and have bank accounts) like Mitt Romney.” [NOW President Terry O’Neill op-ed, Huffington Post, 8/6/12]

 

The Ryan Budget Could Jeopardize Support For 10,000 Loans Worth $4 Billion A Year That Could Have A Disproportionate Impact On Women

The Ryan Budget Could Make 20% Across The Board Cuts To Meet The $1 Trillion Non-Defense Spending Reductions.  “On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.  In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.  By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.  The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable.  What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.  In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an “allowance”— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts.  But what could the resolution mean?  Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget.”  [The Ryan-Republican Budget: The Consequences of Imbalance, Office Of Management And Budget, 3/21/12]

The Ryan Budget Could Jeopardize Support For 10,000 Loans Worth $4 Billion A Year That Could Have A Disproportionate Impact On Women-Owned Small Businesses.  Based on information from the U.S. Small Business Administration, a cut of nearly 20 percent to SBA lending could prevent support for nearly 10,000 loans worth $4 billion each year. According to data from the Urban Institute, his could have a disproportionate impact on women-owned small businesses, as the share of SBA financing that goes to women-owned small businesses is nearly four times larger than the share of conventional financing. [U.S. Small Business Administration Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Report For Fiscal Years 2013 and 2011, Urban Institute, Competitive and Special Competitive Opportunity Gap Analysis of the 7(a) and 504 Programs, 1/1/08]

The Ryan Budget Could Leave 30 Million Americans Without Health Care Coverage

RYAN’S BUDGET WOULD SLASH MEDICAID LEAVING MILLIONS OF WOMEN, CHILDREN AND SENIORS WITHOUT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE

Under Ryan’s Plan, Medicaid Would No Longer Guarantee Coverage To Poor Children, Pregnant Women, The Low-Income Disabled And Elderly Americans In Nursing Homes. “Block grants would give states vast freedom on how to spend the Medicaid money, without the current federal rules about who gets covered and what coverage they get. Medicaid would no longer be an entitlement for poor children, pregnant women, low-income disabled and elderly Americans in nursing homes.” [Politico, 8/16/12]

The Romney-Ryan Budget’s Cuts To Medicaid Could Result In 30 Million Americans Losing Health Care Coverage. “If states maintained their current level of spending for each Medicaid patient, 19 million more people would have to be cut from the program in 2021 because of Ryan’s block-grant reform, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. If states managed to curb health-care spending growth in Medicaid, 14 million beneficiaries would still lose Medicaid coverage under the Ryan plan. And that’s on top of the 11 million Americans who would lose Medicaid coverage because the Ryan plan would repeal Obamacare. So all in all, Ryan’s cuts could mean as many as 30 million Medcaid beneficiaries lose their coverage.” [Washington Post, 8/13/12]

Ryan’s Budget Would “Turn Medicaid Into Block Grants To The States,” Reduce Spending Growth By “$800 Billion In A Decade And Repeal The Medicaid Coverage Expansion” In Obamacare. “Ryan’s budget would turn Medicaid into block grants to the states. That’s not a new idea; Republican governors have been demanding that since at least the Reagan years, which is another reason the issue isn’t capturing the headlines right now. But Ryan’s plan delivers: It would reduce growth in Medicaid spending by $800 billion in a decade and repeal the Medicaid coverage expansion under the Democrats’ health care law.” [Politico, 8/16/12]

The Hill: Medicaid “Would Lose About Three-Quarters Of Its Federal Funding By 2050” Under Ryan’s Proposals. “Medicare is not the only entitlement Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has big plans to reform.  Its sister program, Medicaid, would lose about three-quarters of its federal funding by 2050 under proposals from the Republican vice presidential candidate, according to federal budget auditors.” [The Hill, 8/18/12]

RYAN’S PLAN WOULD DRASTICALLY REDUCE SPENDING FOR CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS AND COVERAGE

Politico: Money Spent On Medicaid And The Children’s Health Insurance Program Would “Plummet” Under The Ryan Plan, According To The Congressional Budget Office. “All told, the CBO has estimated that the amount of money spent on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program would plummet — from 2 percent of GDP in 2011 to 1.25 percent in 2030 and then 1 percent in 2050.” [Politico, 8/16/12]

 

National Organization For Women: The Ryan Budget Is Bad For Women

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN PRESIDENT BLASTED RYAN BUDGET AS ANTI-WOMEN

Huffington Post Headline: “The Romney-Ryan Budget: Taking Aim At Women’s Health Care.” [Terry O’Neill, Huffington Post, 8/6/12]

NOW President: Ryan Budget Takes Away Affordable Health Care For Women By Repealing Health Care Reform Bill. “Of the many ways in which Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's economic vision is bad for women, a good place to start is with women's health care. The Romney-Ryan budget repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as the ACA or ‘Obamacare’) in its entirety, thereby snatching away from millions of women the health care services that the law is just now beginning to make affordable.” [NOW President Terry O’Neill op-ed, Huffington Post, 8/6/12]

NOW President: The Romney-Ryan Budget Plan Would “Put An End” To The Health Benefits Offered To Women In The Affordable Care Act And “Replace [The Health Care Law] With … Well, They Don’t Say.” “The reality is that the ACA is a good first step toward getting the nation's health care costs under control. Women especially need this to happen because, throughout a lifetime of unequal pay, in jobs that frequently don't offer health benefits, women don't have a lot of savings to fall back on to pay for sky-high medical expenses…. But the Romney-Ryan budget plan would put an end to all that. It promises to repeal the ACA and replace it with ... well, they don't say. They claim an intention to ‘move toward patient-centered reform.’ Please note that whenever a conservative offers up a ‘patient-centered’ or ‘consumer-centered’ approach, that means they're passing more of the cost on to you. What would really happen after repeal of the ACA is that we would go right back to where we were during the Bush years, with health care costs spiraling out of control, patients denied coverage of lifesaving health care by profit-hungry insurers, and the worst overall health outcomes in the entire industrialized world.” [NOW President Terry O’Neill op-ed, Huffington Post, 8/6/12]

 

Ryan Has Repeatedly Tried To Eliminate Federal Funding Family Planning

THE RYAN BUDGET WOULD ELIMINATE TITLE X FUNDING, THE ONLY FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAM DEDICATED SOLELY TO FAMILY PLANNING AND PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES

Bloomberg: Ryan “Drafted A Budget Blueprint That Sought To End Federal Dollars For Title X, The National Family-Planning Program.” “As chairman of the House Budget Committee, [Ryan] drafted a budget blueprint that sought to end federal dollars for Title X, the national family-planning program.” [Bloomberg, 8/22/12]

NOW President: “Romney Has Promised To ‘Get Rid Of’ Planned Parenthood And Fully Supports Ryan’s Votes To Zero Out Funding For All Title X Family Planning Clinics.” “And it gets worse, as Romney has promised to ‘get rid of’ Planned Parenthood and fully supports Ryan's votes to zero out funding for all Title X family planning clinics. Now, the advantages of family planning funding couldn't be more clear. The ability to plan one's family, to choose whether and when to have children, is both a matter of women's reproductive freedom and a public health issue. Unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, breast and cervical cancer -- these are issues that have an economic impact on this country, and we can't turn away from them because of outdated, sexist notions about women's reproduction. Contraception helps young women postpone getting pregnant until they finish school or job training. The typical U.S. woman wants only two children; to achieve that goal, she will need to use contraception for about 30 years. Yet, the cost of contraception often deters women from choosing the method what would work best for them. This is especially true of methods with high up-front costs, like long-acting IUDs and implants.” [NOW President Terry O’Neill op-ed, Huffington Post, 8/6/12]

Title X Family Planning “Is The Only Federal Grant Program Dedicated Solely To Providing Individuals With Comprehensive Family Planning And Related Preventive Health Services.” “The Title X Family Planning program [‘Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs’ (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.” [Health and Human Services, Title X Family Planning, accessed 2/15/12]

Title X Provides Preventative Health Services Such As Breast And Pelvic Exams, Breast And Cervical Cancer Screening, And HIV Prevention Education And Testing. “Over the past 40 years, Title X Family Planning clinics have played a critical role in ensuring access to a broad range of family planning and related preventive health services for millions of low-income or uninsured individuals. In addition to contraceptive services and related counseling, Title X-supported clinics provide a number of related preventive health services such as: patient education and counseling; breast and pelvic examinations; breast and cervical cancer screening according to nationally recognized standards of care; sexually transmitted disease (STD) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention education, counseling, testing and referral; and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling. By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” [Health and Human Services, Title X Family Planning, accessed 3/13/12]

RYAN HAS REPEATEDLY VOTED TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Ryan Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In 2011, Ryan voted in favor of a bill which would insert a section in the FY11 Continuing Resolution which would prohibit Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from receiving federal funding. The resolution would order the Clerk of the House to change H.R. 1473, the FY11 Continuing Resolution, to bar the use of the federal funds to go to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any affiliate. The bill passed 241-185. [H Con Res 36, Vote #271, 4/14/11; The Hill, 4/12/11]

Ryan Voted To Prohibit Any Government Funding For Planned Parenthood. In 2011, Ryan voted in favor of an amendment that would bar all funding for Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates. Conservatives had long targeted Planned Parenthood as a major abortion provider but the amendment would bar all federal funding. Planned Parenthood received some $75 million received to provide family planning assistance, contraception, HIV counseling, cancer screenings and other medical services. According to Susan Cohen, director of governmental affairs at the Guttmacher Institute research organization, for every dollar spent on contraception for low-income women, the government saves four dollars in medical costs within the next year by averting unwanted pregnancies. A New York Times editorial pointed out that Republicans’ assault on women’s health would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screening, as well as cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies. The amendment passed 240-185. [HR 1, Pence amendment #11, Vote #93, 2/18/11; New York Times, Editorial, 2/25/11; New York Times, 2/17/11]

Ryan Voted To Eliminate Funding For Planned Parenthood. In 2007, Ryan voted in favor of an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The amendment would have barred the use of funds in the bill for Planned Parenthood. The amendment was defeated 189-231. [HR 3043, Vote #684, 7/19/07; CQ Floor Votes, 7/19/07]

Paul Ryan Would Roll Back The Clock On Women’s Rights

RYAN SUPPORTED ALLOWING STATES TO PROSECUTE WOMEN AND DOCTORS FOR ABORTIONS

Ryan Supported Allowing States To Decide Criminal Penalties For Abortions. “Ryan, a 28-year-old first-time candidate, said he has consistently opposed legal abortion and makes only one exception cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life. He favors overturning the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe vs. Wade decision that made most abortions legal, Ryan said, and would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions. Ryan said he’s never specifically advocated jailing women who have abortions or doctors who perform them, but added, ‘If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/26/98]

Daily Beast: During Paul Ryan’s 1998 Run For Congress, Ryan “Expressed His Willingness To Let States Criminally Prosecute Women Who Have Abortions.” “This disregard for the exigencies of women’s lives—the dismissal of their choices as amoral exercises of ‘arbitrary will’—was thrown into high relief during his 1998 run for congress against Democrat Lydia Spottswood. Both candidates backed a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion, but Spottswood believed there should be exceptions in cases where a woman’s life or health is endangered. ‘Ryan said he opposes abortion, period,’ reported the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. ‘He said any exceptions to a ‘partial-birth’ abortion ban would make that ban meaningless.’  During that campaign, Ryan also expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions. According to another Journal Sentinel article, he ‘would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions. Ryan said he has never specifically advocated jailing women who have abortions or doctors who perform them, but added, ‘If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.’’” [Daily Beast, 8/11/12]

RYAN SUPPORTED BANNING ALL ABORTIONS, EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST

Bloomberg: “Ryan Has Co-Sponsored 38 Anti-Abortion Measures, Including Some That Make No Allowance For Rape.” [Bloomberg, 8/22/12]

Los Angeles Times: “[Ryan] Opposes Legal Abortion In All Circumstances Except When The Life Of The Mother Is At Risk.” “Overall, Ryan's record in Congress reflects his conservative stand on social issues. He opposes legal abortion in all circumstances except when the life of the mother is at risk. On this he is more stringent than Romney, who would make additional exceptions for rape and incest — the official position of the ticket. Planned Parenthood's Action Fund gave Ryan its lowest rating possible for his votes to defund Planned Parenthood and comments against abortion.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/13/12]

Ryan Supported Abortion Ban With Exception Only For Mother’s Life. “Ryan has said he favors only one exception to a ban, to save a woman’s life.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/30/98]

Weeks Earlier, Ryan “Said He Opposes Abortion, Period.” “Ryan said he opposes abortion, period. He said any exceptions to a ‘partial-birth’ abortion ban would make that ban meaningless.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/8/98]

Ryan: “I’m As Pro-Life As A Person Gets.” “‘I’m as pro-life as a person gets,’ Ryan continued. ‘You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.’” [The Weekly Standard, 7/19/10]

RYAN SUPPORTED bill THAT COULD BAN ALL ABORTIONS AND MAKE CERTAIN FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL ILLEGAL

2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored Personhood Bill That Defines Life As Beginning At Conception. “On January 7, 2011, U.S. Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced House Resolution (H.R.) 212, the Sanctity of Human Life Act. Co-sponsored by 62 representatives, including Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the bill declares that: the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” [Pro-Life Wisconsin website, accessed 6/21/12; HR 212, Co-Sponsors, introduced 1/7/11]

Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill That Would Mean “Abortion And Some Forms Of Birth Control Could Be Construed As Murder.” “[Ryan] is a co-sponsor of a bill that would define fetuses as people entitled to full legal protection, a proposal that has become the latest focus in the battles over abortion. The bill declares, ‘The life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.’ The concept of personhood is a fundamental tenet of the anti-abortion movement, and under this definition, abortion and some forms of birth control could be construed as murder.” [New York Times, 8/12/12]

Personhood Amendments Like The One Facing Voters In Mississippi Would Ban Virtually All Abortions Including Those Resulting From Rape Or Incest. “A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder… The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and ‘morning-after pills,’ which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories.” [New York Times, 10/25/11]

Mother Jones: Federal Personhood Bills Are “Nearly Identical” To The Mississippi Amendment. “The Mississippi amendment alters the state's Constitution so that "the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof." Nearly identical language appears in three bills that have been endorsed by scores of Republicans in Congress.” [Mother Jones, 11/8/11]

RYAN HAS supported a bill TO REDEFINE RAPE AS ‘FORCIBLE RAPE’

Paul Ryan Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape. In 2011, Ryan co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which would redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt only “forcible rape” and not “rape” generally. According to the Washington Post, the Act would make a version of the Hyde Amendment permanent. The Hyde Amendment, which had been renewed every year since 1976, prevented some federally-funded health care programs from covering abortions, with exceptions in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the woman is threatened. However, under the language proposed by the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, rape becomes “forcible rape.” The Washington Post reported that the bill’s critics believed “the modifier could distinguish it from other kinds of sexual assault that are typically recognized as rape, including statutory rape and attacks that occur because of drugs or verbal threats.” [HR 3 Co-Sponsors, 112th Congress; Washington Post, 2/1/11]

  • New York Times: Bill “Narrows The Definition Of Rape To ‘Forcible Rape.’” “The bill, sponsored by Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, has drawn fire over language that undercuts a longstanding exemption on the ban on using federal money for abortions in the case of rape or incest; the measure narrows the definition of rape to 'forcible rape,' a term that his office has never defined. Democratic lawmakers and others repeatedly hammered on the term, saying it suggested that victims of statutory rape and other crimes could not get abortions paid for with federal money.” [New York Times, 2/9/11]

RYAN SUPPORTED REQUIRING WOMEN CONSIDERING AN ABORTION TO HAVE AN ULTRASOUND

Ryan Co-Sponsored Bill To Require Women Seeking Abortions To Receive An Ultrasound, With Opportunity To View It Before Proceeding. In 2012, Ryan co-sponsored a bill that would require women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion. The bill included an exception to the requirement when the mother’s life was in danger. The bill included a $100,000 fine for abortion providers that knowingly did not comply with the ultrasound requirement, with $250,000 for subsequent violations. [HR 3805, introduced 1/23/12]

NARAL Policy Director: Bill Is “Terribly Un-American.” “Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the bill ‘terribly un-American.’ ‘In this country we don’t force people to undergo medical procedures just because a politician says to,” Crane said, adding that the bill is “one of just a number of terrible positions’ on women’s rights issues.” [Buzzfeed, 8/11/12]

RYAN COSPONSORED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO DENY HEALTH COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION AND OTHER SERVICES

2011: Ryan Cosponsored Legislation That Would Have Allowed Employers to Decline Coverage Based on “Religious Beliefs” Or “Moral Convictions.” “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 - Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan or the purchaser or beneficiary (in the case of individual coverage) without penalty.  Declares that such plans are still considered to: (1) be providing the essential health benefits package or preventive health services, (2) be a qualified health plan, and (3) have fulfilled other requirements under PPACA. Declares that nothing in PPACA shall be construed to authorize a health plan to require a provider to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider's religious beliefs or moral convictions. Prohibits a health plan from being considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services or to fulfill any other requirement under PPACA because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider. Prohibits an American Health Benefit Exchange (a state health insurance exchange) or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing PPACA from discriminating against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of an unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services. Creates a private cause of action for the protection of individual rights created under this Act. Authorizes any person or entity to assert a violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.” [HR 1179, Introduced 3/17/11]

San Diego Union-Tribune: “The Bill Would Allow Health Plans To Prohibit Certain Types Of Coverage Based On An Employer’s Religious Beliefs.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 6/21/12]

Ryan: “The Contraceptive Mandate Is An Affront To Religious Liberty.” “[Ryan] has criticized Mr. Obama’s efforts to guarantee free insurance coverage of contraceptives for women, including those employed by Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies. ‘The contraceptive mandate is an affront to religious liberty,’ Mr. Ryan has said. ‘If the president is willing to trample on our constitutional rights in a difficult election year, imagine what he will do in implementing the rest of this law, after he doesn’t have to face the voters again, if he gets re-elected,’ Mr. Ryan said in February on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’” [New York Times, 8/13/12]

 

Ryan Budget And Students

The Ryan Budget Makes Drastic Cuts To Education That Could Kick Kids Off Head Start And Lead To Teacher Layoffs And Larger Classes

Ryan’s Budget Plan Could Cut 200,000 Children From Head Start In 2014 Alone

New York Times Editorial: The House Republican Budget Would Target Cuts At Programs Like Head Start. The New York Times wrote of the 2013 House Republican Budget: “It vows to balance tax cuts for corporations and the rich by closing loopholes, but never lists the loopholes. It is, however, quite specific about cutting Medicaid by about 45 percent, leaving 19 million people without care, and eliminating plans to provide health insurance for 33 million who lack coverage now. Worst of all, it undermines a hard-fought agreement Democrats and Republicans made last August to set spending targets for 2013. Under pressure from House conservatives, Mr. Ryan cut nearly $20 billion from spending levels set in the debt-ceiling pact, breaking faith with the Senate and potentially leading to a government shutdown this fall. Much of that reduction is likely to come from programs like Head Start, Pell grants for college students and state aid.” [Editorial, New York Times, 3/20/12]

The Ryan Budget Would Mean “Steep Domestic Spending Cuts Would Push 200,000 Children From Head Start.” “But as more information emerged on the Republican budget, opposition continued to grow. Under questioning, the Republican staff director of the budget committee, Austin Smythe, said the budget was likely to cut transportation financing by $40 billion to $50 billion in the coming fiscal year alone. White House officials said steep domestic spending cuts would push 200,000 children from Head Start, while denying access to food assistance to 1.8 million infants, children and pregnant and post-partum women.” [New York Times, 3/22/12]

IF CUTS WERE APPLIED ACROSS THE BOARD, RYAN’S BUDGET WOULD SLASH OVER $115 BILLION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OVER THE NEXT DECADE, Including Nearly $5 billion from k-12

Ryan’s Budget Would Cut The Department Of Education “By More Than $115 Billion Over A Decade.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013 … On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

The Ryan Budget Would Cut Elementary And Secondary Education Funding By $4.8 Billion. According to the White House, cuts to elementary and secondary education, special education funding would total $4,847,000,000 under the Ryan Budget. [WhiteHouse.gov, 4/6/12]

The Ryan Plan Would Cut Non-Defense Discretionary Spending By About 20 Percent. “The plan crafted by Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee, calls for reductions of about 20 percent in non-defense discretionary spending.” [Reuters, 8/16/12]

If Ryan Budget Cuts Were Distributed Evenly Across The Board, 38,000 Teachers And 27,000 Special Education Teachers Could Lose Their Jobs. “If these cuts were distributed evenly across budget areas, the White House report said, it would mean reductions in federal grants that would eliminate funding for 38,000 teachers and aides and a further 27,000 special-education teachers.” [Reuters, 8/16/12]

THE RYAN BUDGET CUTS TO EDUCATION COULD LEAD TO LARGER CLASS SIZES AND FEWER TEACHERS

The Ryan Budget Would Make Drastic Cuts To Discretionary Spending Which Could Lead To Fewer Teachers And Larger Classes. “Another quarter of the value of federal discretionary grants goes to help states educate children.  These funds mostly end up with elementary and high schools, primarily to help them educate children from low-income families and children with learning disorders and other types of disabilities.  The funds also go to agencies that provide preschool education to low-income children through the Head Start program, and to school districts to help them train better teachers and reduce class sizes. If these federal grants are reduced sharply, as they would be under the Ryan budget, states and local governments will be forced to choose between increasing their own spending to protect their schools or allowing their schools to take the financial hit, which could damage the quality of their education systems.” [Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, 8/8/12]

The Ryan Budget Cuts Would Likely “Cause School Districts To Lay Off More Teachers And Other Education Workers.” “The cuts likely also would cause school districts to lay off more teachers and other education workers, weakening the economy’s sluggish recovery.  (School districts have already cut 305,000 teaching and other education jobs since August 2008, even as school enrollment has continued to grow.)” [Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, 8/8/12]

The Ryan Budget Threatens Programs That Improve Teacher Quality And Reduce Class Size. “Major education programs threatened with deep cuts under the Ryan budget include: … Improving teacher quality.  The U.S. Department of Education provides grants to states and school districts to improve the quality of teaching in their schools.  School districts with the highest poverty levels receive a disproportionately large share of the funds.  Most of the grant money is spent on training programs to help teachers be more effective and to reduce class sizes (by employing more teachers).  School districts used this funding to pay the salaries of over 14,000 teachers nationally to reduce class sizes in the 2011-12 school year.” [Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, 8/8/12]

THE RYAN BUDGET COULD LEAD TO CUTS IN CLASS ROOM TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

The U.S. Department Of Education Administers Education Technology Grants. [Department of Education, accessed 8/19/12]

The Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Dist