This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (April 2011)

The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise was the Republican Party's budget proposal for the year 2012. It competed with budget proposals outlined separately by President Barack Obama.^[1] and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.^[2][3] The Republican proposal was formalized and passed by the House of Representatives on Friday, April 15, 2011 largely along party lines. No Democrats voted in favor of the bill and only four Republicans voted against it, which created a 235 to 193 end vote total.^[4] The four Republican members of Congress who voted against the bill were Walter B. Jones, Jr., David McKinley, Ron Paul and Denny Rehberg.^[4] A month later, the bill died in the Senate by a vote of 57-40.^[5]

The 2012 United States federal budget funds the operations of the federal government of United States for the fiscal year 2012, which runs October 2011–September 2012.

The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal was presented as the Republican budget proposal for 2013 in March 2012.^[6] The proposal focuses includes plans to reform Medicare, cap discretionary federal spending at $1.029 trillion and cut the highest individual tax rates.^[7]

Representative Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, played a prominent public role in drafting and promoting both The Path to Prosperity proposals, and they are often referred to as the Ryan budget, Ryan plan, Ryan proposal, etc.^[8][7]

Key features[link]

U.S. federal deficits, surpluses, and debt under various plans.

The Republican 2012 Budget proposal, as specified to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) by Paul Ryan's staff, encompasses changes to Medicare, Medicaid, the major 2010 health care legislation, other government spending (excluding that for Social Security), and tax law.^[9]

Medicare and Medicaid reforms[link]

• Medicare: Starting in 2022, the proposal would end the current Medicare program for all Americans born after 1956 and replace it with a new program (still called Medicare) of somewhat voucher-like "premium support payment" and would increase the age of eligibility for Medicare:^[9]
  • Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.
  • After 2022, the current Medicare program ends for all people who have not already enrolled. People already enrolled in the current Medicare program prior to 2022 would continue to receive the program. New enrollees after 2022 would be entitled to a premium support payment to help them purchase private health insurance.
  • Beneficiaries of the premium support payments would choose among competing private insurance plans operating in a newly established Medicare exchange. Plans would have to insure all eligible people who apply and would have to charge the same premiums for enrollees of the same age. The premium support payments would go directly from the government to the private insurance companies that people selected.
  • The premium support payments would vary with the health status of the beneficiary. For the average 65-year-old, payment in 2022 is specified to be $8,000, which is approximately the same dollar amount as projected net federal spending per capita for 65-year-olds in traditional Medicare in that year.
  • Each year, the premium support payments would increase to reflect increases in the consumer price index (average inflation) and the fact that enrollees in Medicare tend to be less healthy and require more costly health care as they age.
  • The premium support payments to enrollees would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. The wealthiest 2% of enrollees would receive 30 percent of the premium support amount described above; the next 6% would receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining 92% the income distribution would receive the full premium support amount described above.
  • Eligibility for the traditional Medicare program would not change for people who are age 55 or older by the end of 2011 or for people who receive Medicare benefits through the Disability Insurance program prior to 2022. People covered under traditional Medicare would, beginning in 2022, have the option of switching to the premium support system.
• The proposal would modify Medicaid as follows:^[9]
  • Starting in 2013, the federal share of all Medicaid payments would be converted into block grants to be allocated to the states. The total dollar amount of the block grants would increase annually with population growth and with growth in the consumer price index (average inflation).
  • Starting in 2022, Medicaid block grant payments would be reduced to exclude projected spending for acute care services for elderly Medicaid beneficiaries.
  • States would have additional flexibility in designing their programs.

Repeal of 2010 health care legislation[link]

• 2010 Health Care Legislation: The Republican proposal would make several changes to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.^[9]
  • In general, key provisions of those laws that deal with insurance coverage would be repealed, including:
    • Repeal the requirement that most legal U.S. residents obtain health insurance;
    • Repeal the establishment of health insurance exchanges and subsidies for some individuals and families who purchase coverage through the exchanges;
    • Repeal the expansion of Medicaid coverage to include most nonelderly income below 138 percent of the federal poverty level;
    • Repeal penalties on certain employers if any of their workers obtain subsidized coverage through the exchanges; and
    • Repeal tax credits for small employers that offer health insurance.
  • The proposal would repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (CLASS Act) program for long-term care insurance, as well as a number of mandatory grant programs including funds for so-called high-risk pools, reinsurance for early retirees, and prevention and public health activities.
  • The proposal would repeal the provisions that created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.
  • Canceling the expanded subsidies aimed at closing the “coverage gap” in Medicare Part D, the so-called "Medicare doughnut hole." The gap is a range of spending in which many Medicare beneficiaries are financially responsible for the entire cost of prescription drugs until the expense reaches the catastrophic coverage threshold.

Other healthcare reforms[link]

• Tort reform: Several changes would be made to laws governing medical malpractice, including putting in place limits on noneconomic and punitive damages.^[9]

Other spending cuts[link]

The Path to Prosperity reduces other mandatory and discretionary spending from 12 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 6 percent in 2021. ^[9]

Revenues/taxation[link]

The instructions given to the CBO to evaluate the proposal specified revenue of 19% GDP, which is above the current level of around 15% GDP and slightly above the 30-year historical average of 18.2% GDP. The Path states separately that income tax rates would be lowered and selected tax expenditures (such as deductions, exemptions, and subsidies) would be eliminated.^[9] A Reuters article has also stated that the plan would eliminate taxes on overseas profits for businesses. ^[10]

Social Security[link]

Social Security receives no changes in the proposal compared to the baseline. The CBO states that "spending on that program is projected to be relatively stable as a share of GDP from 2030 forward."^[9]

Reactions and debate[link]

Paul Ryan pictured in February 2011.

The proposal broadly generated negative reactions from Democrats and positive reactions from Republicans.^[11]

A news analysis piece by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post stated that the proposal "relies on dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures". He stated that it involved unrealistic assumptions for the status quo (the alternate fiscal scenario) such as the inclusion of all the Bush-era tax cuts being extended forever and the alternative minimum tax being indexed for inflation.^[8]

Ryan appeared on the April 3rd episode of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to discuss the proposal.^[12]

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. Very frankly, that's not a path we want to go down again."^[11]

Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor praised Ryan's proposal. They argued that a national conversation must take place between people of all political stripes about the fiscal future. Boehner remarked, "The president is certainly entitled to disagree with our budget... but what exactly is his alternative?"^[11]

Cantor said on the April 10th episode of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:

What we've said and what the Ryan budget calls for are spending targets. And the way we get to spending targets both on the discretionary and mandatory side of the ledger. 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. So, what we've said is this: we're going to protect today's seniors and those nearing retirement. But for the rest of us, all of us who are 54 and younger, I know those programs are not going to be there for me when I retire, just like everyone else 54 and younger. They can't. We cannot sustain that kind of trajectory.^[13]

Liberal Economist 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.^[14][15] The New York Times editorial board wrote: "We are also certain that repealing [Obama's healthcare ] reform — the Republicans’ No. 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."^[16]

Changes to Medicare[link]

Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times says there's no reason to believe that Ryan's proposals will do anything to reduce healthcare costs in the U.S., and reason to believe they would do the opposite.^[17] Starting in 2022, the Republican proposal would extinguish Medicare as a guaranteed coverage program for new enrollees and would replace the program with healthcare vouchers, allowing seniors to buy private health insurance with a government subsidy.^[9]

Henry Aaron, one of two economists who coined the term "premium support" in response to criticisms of health care vouchers,^[18] states that the Republican plan for Medicare uses vouchers, not “premium support”.^[19] The defining attribute of the plans that Aaron christened “premium support” was that governmental financial support would rise with average health care costs. The Republican plan instead, has this support rising with the consumer price index (general inflation). This difference is crucial to understanding the Republican proposal—the cost of health care is rising much faster than the consumer price index..^[19]

The vouchers would rise in value with the consumer price index (general inflation), but as medical expenses have been rising much faster than the consumer price index, the value of the government subsidy would erode over time. When the program begins in 2022, the typical 65-year old would be responsible for about 25% of the cost of their healthcare, which is consistent with Medicare as it exists today. However, the share paid out-of-pocket by this typical 65-year-old in 2030 would be 68% under the Republican plan, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.^[9]

Chairman Paul Ryan claims that his new Medicare plan was modeled after the health care plans that Congressmen themselves currently receive.^[12] Others point out that Members of Congress have what is called a "fair-share deal"; they do not bear the entire risk of increased costs due to health care inflation. The health care plan that Members of Congress use, indexes benefits to health care inflation, not to the consumer price index.^[20] As health care becomes more expensive due to inflation, the government, not Members of Congress, are responsible for most of the extra costs.

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.^[11]

Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, incoming chair of the Democratic National Committee, stated that "This plan would literally be a death trap for seniors".^[21]

Several presumptive Republican Presidential candidates made statements in support of the proposal. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney applauded the effort for "offering real leadership" and "setting the right tone".^[11]

PolitiFact, a nonpartisan fact-checking site, rated the claim by Democrats that the Republicans voted to end Medicare as their Lie of the Year for 2011.^[22]

Additional Medicare Costs[link]

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net) has released a study, based largely on CBO calculations, suggesting that the Ryan Plan will add trillions of dollars to the cost of Medicare due to the lower efficiency of private insurance as compared to the current Government program(http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ryan-waste-2011-04.pdf).

Changes to tax law[link]

James Fallows, national correspondent for The Atlantic, panned the proposal. He wrote:

A plan that proposes to eliminate tax loopholes and deductions, but doesn't say what any of those are, is neither brave nor serious. It is, instead canny—or cynical, take your pick. The reality is that many of these deductions, notably for home-mortgage interest payments, are popular and therefore risky to talk about eliminating. [Bold in original]^[23]

Additionally, Erik Wasson wrote:

On taxes, the Ryan plan also eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax, cuts the 35 percent corporate rate to 25 percent and eliminates taxes on foreign profits.^[24]

CBO review[link]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did an analysis of the resolution (a less rigorous evaluation than full scoring of legislation), estimating that the Path would balance the budget by 2030 and reduce the level of debt held by the public to 10% GDP by 2050, vs. 62% in 2010. The Path assumes revenue collection of 19% GDP after 2022, up from the current 15% GDP and closer to the historical average of 18.3% GDP. A grouping of spending categories called "Other Mandatory and Defense and Non-Defense Discretionary spending" would be reduced from 12% GDP in 2010 to 3.5% by 2050.^[25]

The CBO also analyzed the Medicare aspects of the resolution, reporting that: "Under the proposal, most beneficiaries who receive premium support payments would pay more for their healthcare than if they participated in traditional Medicare under either of CBO's long-term scenarios. CBO estimated that, in 2030, a typical 65-year old would pay 68 percent of the benchmark under the proposal, compared with 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario." The benchmark refers to the estimated cost of a private health insurance plan with a benefit package comparable to Medicare. The additional cost was because both administrative costs (including profits) and payment rates to providers are higher under private plans. The additional cost would be partially offset by: a) incremental "utilization management" or care restrictions exerted by private providers versus Medicare; and b) enrollees facing increased cost-sharing would tend to lower utilization of services.^[26]

[edit] The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal

In March 2012, the House Budget Committee introduced a new version of The Path to Prosperity as their proposed budget for the fiscal year 2013.^[6] The proposal was authored by Paul Ryan and is intended to contrast with President Obama's stance on taxes and federal spending.^[27] The proposal aims to reduce the federal deficit to $3.13 trillion over the next ten years through measures including a cap on discretionary federal spending at $1.029 trillion and dismantling the Obama administration's 2010 healthcare reform law.^[7] Similarly to the 2012 budget plan, it focuses on cuts in federal spending—except on national defense^[7]—aiming to reduce spending by $5 trillion and balance the budget by 2040.^[6]

The proposal was endorsed by presidential candidate Mitt Romney^[28] and supported by the Republican party, however, according to Reuters, some Republicans in the House have stated that the proposal does not go far enough with its spending cuts. It was also criticized by House Democrats who claimed that the plan would negatively impact the middle class, seniors and lower-income Americans.^[7]

The proposal was criticized by President Obama in a speech at an Associated Press luncheon on April 3, 2011, where he claimed the plan amounted to "thinly veiled social Darwinism".^[29] 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.^[30][31]

Conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation has praised the budget proposal for its cuts to federal spending and for making defense a priority, although it commented that the plan was not bold or aggressive enough with entitlement reforms and spending reductions.^[32][33] The proposal received criticism from progressive organizations, including the Center for American Progress, which argued that the plan would have a negative impact on all but the top 1% and "especially hurts communities of color."^[34]

See also[link]

• National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Path to Prosperity: America's two futures, visualized - HouseBudgetCommittee @ YouTube
• Full Report
• CBO Analysis of Ryan Budget Proposal-April 2011

The Path to 9/11 was a two-part miniseries that aired in the United States on ABC television from September 10 – 11, 2006, and also in other countries. The film dramatizes the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York City and the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The film was written by screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh,^[1] and directed by David L. Cunningham; it stars Harvey Keitel and Donnie Wahlberg.^[2]
According to ABC:

Cast[link]

• Harvey Keitel.... John P. O'Neill (FBI Special Agent, Terrorism, and subsequently Head of Security at WTC)
• Donnie Wahlberg.... Kirk (Composite CIA field agent)
• Mido Hamada.... Ahmad Shah Massoud (Afghan opposition leader against the Taliban)
• Stephen Root.... Richard Clarke
• Barclay Hope.... John Miller
• Patricia Heaton.... Barbara Bodine (U.S. Ambassador to Yemen)
• Shirley Douglas.... Madeleine Albright (U.S. Secretary of State)
• Margaret Long....(Secretary to the President)
• Penny Johnson Jerald.... Condoleezza Rice (U.S. National Security Advisor) {reprising her role from DC 9/11: Time of Crisis}
• Dan Lauria .... George Tenet (Director of Central Intelligence)
• Amy Madigan.... Patricia Carver (Composite CIA headquarters analyst)
• Michael Murphy.... William Cohen
• Trevor White.... Scott Ramer
• William Sadler.... Neil Herman
• Shaun Toub.... Emad Salem
• Stephanie Moore.... Deanna Burnett
• Michael Benyaer.... Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
• Martin Brody.... Mohamed Atta (9/11 leader, piloted American Airlines Flight 11 after the hijacking)
• Nayef Rashed.... Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda leader)
• Fulvio Cecere.... Joe Dunne
• Marie V. Cruz.... Aida Fariscal
• David Zayas....Lou Napoli
• David Huband.... Charley
• Kevin Dunn.... Sandy Berger (U.S. National Security Advisor)
• Nabil Elouahabi.... Ramzi Yousef (World Trade Center bomber)
• Enis Esmer.... Mohammed Salameh
• Moe Fawaz.... Majed Moqed
• Akin Gazi.... Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali
• Youssef Kerkour....Mahmud Abouhalima
• Sam Lupovich.... Khalid al-Midhar
• David Michie.... Nicholas Lanier (composite ABC Middle East correspondent)
• Hani Noureldin.... Nawaf Al-Hazmi
• Armando Riesco.... John Atkinson
• Neil Crone.... Dorsey
• George R. Robertson.... Dick Cheney (Vice President)
• Al Sapienza.... Donald Sadowy
• Katy Selverstone.... Nancy Floyd
• Jean Yoon.... Betty Ong (Flight Attendant)
• Gabe Fazio....J.P. O'Neill (Son of John O'Neill)
• Nicky Guadagni.... Mary Jo White

Plot[link]

The miniseries presents a dramatization of the sequence of events leading to the September 11, 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda on the United States, starting from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and up to the minutes after the collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001, based on the 9/11 Commission reports. The point of view of the movie is from two primary protagonists: John P. O'Neill, and a composite Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent, "Kirk". O'Neill was the real-life Special Agent in charge of Al Qaeda investigations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He died in the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11 shortly after retiring from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and taking the position of Director of Security for the World Trade Center. The composite CIA agent "Kirk" is shown dealing with various American allies, especially Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, in Afghanistan. In addition, "Patricia", a CIA headquarters analyst, represents the views of the rank and file at CIA headquarters. The miniseries features dramatizations of various incidents summarized in the 9/11 Commission Report, and represented in high level discussions held within both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The final hour of the movie dramatizes the events of 9/11, including a re-creation of the second plane entering the World Trade Center, Tom Burnett's calls to his wife, and John Miller's reporting near the scene of the attacks. The film concludes with information about the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the performance evaluation the Commission gave the government when it reconvened in 2005.

Broadcasting[link]

United States[link]

• Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 8:00 pm–10:45 pm (shortened from 11 pm) at EDT on ABC
• Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 8:00 pm–9:00 pm at EDT on ABC
• Part 2 (continued): September 11, 2006 at 9:20 pm – 10:17 pm at EDT on ABC (After President Bush National Address) (See exception)

ABC's broadcasts though originally planned to be shown "with limited commercial interruption" were aired with no commercials, since the network was unable to obtain sponsorship.^[4] The broadcasts were also watched in Canada, where the network is available on cable and satellite.

Part 2 of the miniseries, also uninterrupted, aired in the San Diego, California market on KGTV nearly a week later, on September 16, 2006, from 8:30pm–10:30 pm. ^{[citation needed]}

Australia[link]

• Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 8:30 pm on Channel Seven
• Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 9:30 pm on Channel Seven

Belgium[link]

• Part 1: September 13, 2006 at 9:05 pm on VT4
• Part 2: September 20, 2006 at 9:05 pm on VT4

• Part 1: August 20, 2008 at 9:10 pm on RTL-TVI
• Part 2: August 20, 2008 at 10:00 pm on RTL-TVI
• Part 3: August 20, 2008 at 10:50 pm on RTL-TVI

Croatia[link]

• Part 1: March 6, 2010 at 23:15 pm on Nova TV
• Part 2: March 13, 2010 at 23:15 pm on Nova TV

Finland[link]

• Part 1: November 11, 2007 on MTV3
• Part 2: November 18, 2007 on MTV3
• Part 3: November 25, 2007 on MTV3
• Part 4: December 2, 2007 on MTV3
• Part 5: December 9, 2007 on MTV3

In Finland the miniseries was shown in five parts as distinct from normal two.

India[link]

• Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 9:00 pm on Zee Studio
• Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 9:00 pm on Zee Studio

Japan[link]

• Part 1 & 2: January 14, 2007 at 8:00 pm on Wowow
• Synopsis: September 13, 2009, from 9:00 pm – 10:54 pm on TV Asahi

New Zealand[link]

• Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 7:30 pm on TV One
• Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 7:30 pm on TV One

Norway[link]

• Part 1: January 3, 2008 on TVNorge
• Part 2: January 4, 2008 on TVNorge
• Part 1: September 12, 2008 on TVNorge

South Africa[link]

• Part 1: September 11, 2007 on M-Net
• Part 2: September 11, 2007 on M-Net

Spain[link]

• Part 1: September 12, 2007 at 10.00 pm on Antena 3
• Part 2: September 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm on Antena 3

United Kingdom[link]

• Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 8:00 pm on BBC2
• Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 8:30 pm on BBC2

BBC2's broadcasts were also watched in Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands, where the channel is available on cable.

Production history[link]

According to ABC, the movie is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, books The Cell by John Miller and The Relentless Pursuit by Samuel Katz,^[3] as well as personal interviews, news accounts, and other sources.^[5] The first indication that ABC was running a miniseries appeared in a brief article in the New York Post.^[6] In it, the producers identified shooting locations and revealed that Harvey Keitel would play John O'Neill. At the time, ABC had a working name of Untitled Commission Report and the producers used the working title Untitled History Project, with the project beginning filming in July 2005 and scheduled to end post production by January 2006. Preview screenings were made in May for foreign broadcasters.^[7] The film was first publicly announced at the Television Critics Association summer press tour in July.

According to Advertising Age, the miniseries was a personal project of ABC entertainment president Steve McPherson, who began to look for a producer shortly after reading the 9/11 Commission Report.

The White House asked the major networks for airtime to present a Presidential Address to the nation. The interruption delayed the broadcast of the second half of Path to 9/11 by approximately 20 minutes in the Eastern and Central Time Zones. Otherwise, the movie aired without any interruption.

Filming was conducted in Morocco, New York City, Toronto, Hamilton, Ontario^[8] and Washington, D. C. The production was one of the few allowed to film at the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia.^[9]

Controversy and criticisms[link]

ABC advertised the involvement of the 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean as both a consultant and as a co-executive producer.^{[10][clarification needed]}

Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste said that the miniseries misrepresented facts presented in the 9/11 Commission report.^[11]

To date, ABC's $40 million miniseries, which drew a combined audience of 25 million, has not been released on DVD. Writer and producer Cyrus Nowrasteh has said that a stalled release is not due to lack of interest but rather strong political pressure. He told the Los Angeles Times that "[P]owerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House". Furthermore, Nowrasteh goes on to explain that he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that "if Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem." According to the LA Times, an ABC spokeswoman reached September 4, 2007 would say only that the company "has no release date at this time," and she declined to comment further.^[12] In an interview with KFI's John Ziegler, Nowrasteh candidly discusses the issue.^[13]

[edit] Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11

9/11 Commission Kean's comment[link]

Additionally, a book by Thomas Kean, a member of the 9/11 Commission who worked as an adviser to the film, is also included as published material.^[14] Kean supports the film saying, "People in both parties didn't particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren't going to love this one".^[14] Kean also remarked on ABC's Good Morning America: "It's something the American people should see because you understand how these people wanted to do us harm, developed this plot, and how the machinations of the American government under two administrations not only failed to stop them, but even failed to slow them down."^[15] According to the New York Times of the 13th September, Kean said that he had vetted much of the screenplay for accuracy and that he was confident it reflected the spirit of what happened. "I’m very happy with it," he said.

ABC maintains film is non-partisan[link]

ABC continued to maintain that their movie was non-partisan and responded to critics by explaining that, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."^[16]

Film storyline corroboration[link]

In a November 2004 Weekly Standard article, Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, tends to lend support to the overall theme in The Path to 9/11 that Berger, Tenet and Clarke were more concerned about collateral damage than killing or capturing bin Laden^[17]:

Responses from the right[link]

Some conservative commentators have responded to the controversy by suggesting that what they call "the deep anger of the Clinton political machine" or the "narcissistic whining of the Clinton coterie" amounts to "self-serving complaints," to "an irrelevant diversion," to a "repellent" "hissy fit," and to quibbling about details in what talk radio host Hugh Hewitt described as "a very accurate docudrama" whose main message, according to Brent Bozell, is that "America's intelligence apparatus was woefully unprepared for 9-11, and remains dangerously inadequate today."^[18] Bozell further stated that both "Clinton and Bush officials come under fire, and if it seems more anti-Clinton, that's only because they were in office a lot longer than Team Bush before 9-11. Indeed, the film drives home the point that from our enemies' perspective, it's irrelevant who is in the White House. They simply want to kill Americans and destroy America. The film doesn't play favorites, and the Bush administration takes its lumps as well." ^[19] Hewitt added that the "program is not primarily about the Clinton stewardship—or lack thereof—of the national security. It is not even secondarily about that. Rather the mini-series is the first attempt — very successful — to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy."^[18]

ABC airs movie with minor changes[link]

On September 10, 2006, Part 1 aired over ABC in the United States as scheduled and without commercial interruption. According to the journal Editor and Publisher Magazine, less than one minute was "cropped out" in comparison to the review copy in its possession. All of the controversial scenes were included in some manner, with only brief shots trimmed and occasional word substitutions made^{[citation needed]}. In addition, a written and spoken disclaimer was aired at the beginning and end of the movie (and just past the midpoint of the first evening's broadcast) reminding viewers that the movie was a fictionalization.^[20] The film "is not a documentary," ABC/Disney said.

On September 11, 2006, Part 2 aired as scheduled, without commercials, though it was interrupted halfway in by a speech from President Bush in the Eastern and Central time zones. Part 2 then continued in its entirety.

While the first night had lower ratings, the second night received the highest ratings of the night.^[21]

Awards[link]

• 2007 Emmy Award: Outstanding Single Camera Picture Editing for a Miniseries or a Movie
• 2007 Emmy Award nominations: Outstanding Casting for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special; Outstanding Cinematography for a Miniseries or Movie; Outstanding Main Title Design; Outstanding Music Composition for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (Original Dramatic Score); Outstanding Sound Editing for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special; Outstanding Special Visual Effects for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special;
• 2007 American Cinema Editors Eddie Award: Best Edited Miniseries or Motion Picture for Commercial Television

Ratings[link]

United States[link]

During the first night of the original broadcast in the United States, The Path to 9/11 was beat by NFL football and tied a rerun of the film 9/11 shown on CBS. However, The Path to 9/11 was the top rated show on its second night, finishing with a 8.3 rating/12 share. Overall, it had a combined audience of 25 million.^[22]

Documentary revisits controversy[link]

In August, 2008, talk show host and documentary filmmaker John Ziegler and producer David Bossie of Citizens United premiered a documentary co-produced, written and directed by Ziegler entitled Blocking The Path to 9/11,^[23][24][25] which revisits the political controversy behind the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11.^[26] Through interviews with the Path to 9/11 filmmakers and others, news clips regarding the controversy, and footage from the miniseries itself, the documentary asserts not only that accusations of the filmmakers' covert political agenda were unfounded, but that they were generated by Clinton-era politicians concerned that the miniseries tarnished their political legacy, and were reported uncritically by bloggers and a biased news media. The documentary also claims that Disney/ABC ultimately shelved plans to release a DVD of the miniseries as a result of pressure from the political left, specifically the Clintons themselves. As noted in the documentary, Disney/ABC denies this and claims the decision not to release a DVD was purely a business decision. ^[27]

See also[link]

• 9/11 Commission Report
• I Missed Flight 93
• Inside 9/11
• Special Bulletin
• The Day After
• The Reagans

References[link]

External links[link]

Find more about The Path to 9/11 on Wikipedia's sister projects:
	Definitions and translations from Wiktionary
	Images and media from Commons
	Learning resources from Wikiversity
	News stories from Wikinews
	Quotations from Wikiquote
	Source texts from Wikisource
	Textbooks from Wikibooks

• The Path to 9/11 at the Internet Movie Database
• 9/11 Commission Report
• Think Progress articles on bias and errors in The Path to 9/11
• Review in the New York Post by John Podhoretz
• Fact-checking ABC (video from Slate Magazine)
• Cyrus Nowrasteh's articles in The Wall Street Journal on The Path to 9/11:
  • "The Path to Hysteria" (09-18-2006)
  • "A Path to 9/11"
• Interview with Cyrus Nowrasteh by Investor's Business Daily
• Opening of The Path to 9/11, ABC, September 10, 2006, including disclaimer.

Paul Ryan
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 1st district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 1999
Preceded by	Mark Neumann
Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011
Preceded by	John Spratt
Personal details
Born	Paul Davis Ryan (1970-01-29) January 29, 1970 (age 42) Janesville, Wisconsin
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Janna Ryan
Children	Elizabeth, Charles, and Samuel
Residence	Janesville, Wisconsin
Alma mater	Miami University (B.A.)
Religion	Roman Catholic
Website	U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan

Paul Davis Ryan^[1] (born January 29, 1970) is the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, serving since 1999. He is a member of the Republican Party, and has been ranked among the party's most influential voices on economic policy.^[2][3][4]

Born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, Ryan graduated from Miami University in Ohio and later worked as a marketing consultant for Ryan Incorporated Central, run by a branch of his family. In the mid to late 1990s, he worked as an aide to United States Senator Bob Kasten, as legislative director for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and as a speechwriter for former U.S. Representative and 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp of New York. In 1998, Ryan won election to the United States House of Representatives, succeeding the two-term incumbent, fellow Republican Mark Neumann.

Ryan currently chairs the House Budget Committee, where he has played a prominent public role in drafting and promoting the Republican Party's long-term budget proposal. He introduced a plan, The Path to Prosperity, in April 2011 as an alternative to the budget proposal of President Barack Obama, and helped introduce The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal in March 2012, in response to Obama's 2013 budget.^[5] Ryan is one of the three co-founders of the Young Guns Program, an electoral recruitment and campaign effort by House Republicans. He endorsed Republican presidential candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney for the 2012 United States presidential election.^[6] Ryan has been considered as a possible running mate for Romney.^[7]

Early life, education, and career[link]

Ryan was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, the youngest child of Elizabeth A. "Betty" (née Hutter) and Paul Murray Ryan, a lawyer.^[8][9][10] He is of Irish and German ancestry,^[11] and is a fifth-generation Janesville native. Ryan's great-grandfather is Patrick William Ryan, who founded the Ryan Incorporated Central construction business in 1884.^[12] Ryan's mother is an outdoors enthusiast who led her husband and four children (Ryan's sister Janet and two brothers, Tobin and Stan) on regular hiking and skiing trips in the Colorado Rocky Mountains.^[9][13] As a boy, Ryan attended Camp Manito-wish YMCA, a wilderness canoe tripping camp located in Boulder Junction, Wisconsin; while in college, he returned there to work as a staff member and counselor during summer vacation.

Ryan attended Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville. In college, he briefly worked for Oscar Mayer as a Wienermobile driver.^[14] Ryan went on to graduate from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, with a BA in economics and political science in 1992. He also studied at the Washington Semester program at American University and was a member of the Delta Tau Delta social fraternity. Following his studies, Ryan returned to Wisconsin and worked as a marketing consultant for an earth-moving company run by a branch of his family.^[13][15]

Ryan was 16 years old when he found his father in bed, dead from a heart attack at age 55. As a result, he received Social Security survivor's benefits until he turned 18. Ryan's grandfather and great-grandfather had also died from heart attacks, at ages 57 and 59 respectively.^[16]

Early political career[link]

In 2005, Ryan said, "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand".^[17] New York magazine has claimed that Ryan requires his staff to read Atlas Shrugged.^[18] In 2012, however, he said that while as a young man he became interested in economics because of her novels, "It’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist... I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand."^[19]

During his junior year at Miami University, Ryan worked as an intern opening mail for the foreign affairs advisor assigned to Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin.^[20] Concerned that her son "...was destined to become a ski bum", Betty Ryan reportedly nudged him to accept another congressional position as a staff economist attached to Kasten's office.^[20][21] In his early years working in D.C., Ryan moonlighted on Capitol Hill as a waiter at the Tortilla Coast restaurant and as a fitness trainer at Washington Sport and Health Club, among various other side jobs.^[22]

After Kasten was defeated by Democrat Russ Feingold in 1992, Ryan became a speechwriter and a volunteer economic analyst with Empower America, an advocacy group formed by Jack Kemp, former education secretary Bill Bennett, the late diplomat Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber of Minnesota.^[16][23]

Ryan worked as a speechwriter for Kemp, the Republican vice presidential candidate in the 1996 United States presidential election, and later worked as legislative director for US Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Ryan then returned to Wisconsin, where he worked as a consultant to an earth-moving company.^{[citation needed]} In 1998, he ran for Congress.

U.S. House of Representatives[link]

Following his first election to the US House of Representatives in 1998, one of Ryan's priorities as a new congressman was to convert a truck into a rolling district office. This allowed him to keep regular congressional office hours with his constituents at various locations across Wisconsin's 1st congressional district.^[24][1]

In 2002, Ryan voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq.^[25] In 2003 he voted in favor of the Medicare Part D prescription drug expansion.^[26]

In 2005, Ryan spoke at a Celebration of Ayn Rand event hosted by The Atlas Society. During the event, Ryan spoke about the influence of Atlas Shrugged on his life.^[27]

He is one of the three founding members of the House GOP Young Guns Program.

In 2008, Ryan voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Wall Street bailout that precipitated the Tea Party movement, and the bailout of GM and Chrysler.^[28]

In 2010, The Daily Telegraph ranked Ryan the ninth most influential US conservative.^[2] In 2011, he was selected to deliver the Republican response to the State of the Union address.^[29]

In 2012, Ryan accused the nation's top military leaders of using "smoke and mirrors" to remain under budget limits passed by Congress.^[30] Ryan later said that he misspoke on the issue and called General Martin Dempsey to apologize for his comments.^[31]

Ryan's Second Budget Plan[link]

At the end of March 2012, the House of Representatives passed a newer version of Ryan's budget plan along partisan lines 228 yeas to 191 nays; ten Republicans voted against bill, along with all the House Democrats.^[32] Ryan's budget would reduce all discretionary spending in the budget from 12.5% of GDP in 2011 to 3.75% of GDP in 2050. This goal has been criticized as unrealistic since it includes spending on defense, which has never fallen below 3% of GDP.^[33] Congressman Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan criticized Ryan's budget for insufficient cuts, its continuation of deficit spending through 2022 and beyond, and its exemption of military spending from reductions. ^[34] His budget has also been criticized because it would not balance the budget until 2035. Marc Goldwein, the policy directory for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated "We may never, as a country, have a balanced budget again, And you know what? We don't have to." Ryan saw this as evidence of the severity of the deficit crisis.^[35]

The 2012 Ryan budget also received criticism from elements of the Catholic Church, specifically from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and from faculty and administrators of Georgetown University. In its letter to Rep. Ryan, the group of Georgetown faculty and administrators criticized the Ryan budget as trying to "to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices," going on to say that Catholic teaching "demands that higher levels of government provide help—"subsidium"—when communities and local governments face problems beyond their means to address such as economic crises, high unemployment, endemic poverty and hunger." The letter also criticizes Ryan for his attempts at "gutting government programs" and states that Ryan is "profoundly misreading Church teaching."^[36] A statement issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized the Ryan budget in similar terms.^[37] Ryan rejects the bishops' criticism that his budget plans would disproportionately cut programs that "serve poor and vulnerable people."^[38] Ryan's difficulties with the Catholic Church worsened when videos of Ryan praising and endorsing the "morality" of Ayn Rand's hyper-individualist philosophy were published on Youtube in 2012. ^[39]

In May of 2012, Ryan voted for H.R. 4310 which would increase spending on defense, Afghanistan and various weapon systems to the level of $642 billion - $8 billion more than what was agreed to by President Obama and the Congress in the summer of 2011. ^[40]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on the Budget (Chairman)
• Committee on Ways and Means
  • Subcommittee on Health

Caucus memberships[link]

• Congressional Middle East Economic Partnership Caucus
• International Conservation Caucus
• Republican Study Committee
• Sportsmen's Caucus (Co-Chair)

Roadmap for America's Future[link]

Ryan speaking at CPAC in February 2011.

On May 21, 2008, Ryan introduced H.R. 6110, titled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008."^[41] This proposed legislation outlined a plan to deal with entitlement spending.^[42] Its stated objectives were: to ensure universal access to health insurance; to strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; to lift debt from future generations; and to promote economic growth and job creation in America.^[43] Despite significant press coverage, it did not move past committee.^[44]

On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This alternative budget would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.^[45] It would also have replaced Medicare.^[46] Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would pay part of the cost of private medical insurance for individuals turning 65.^[46] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out of the federal income taxation system with itemized deductions, and instead pay a flat 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 and 25 percent on any remaining income.^[47] Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers.^[48] It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.^[49]

In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his Roadmap.^[50] The modified plan would: give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminate income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolish the corporate income tax, estate tax, and alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,^[51][52] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,^[52] and privatize Medicare.^[51][52]

On April 15, 2011, the House passed the Ryan Plan by a vote of 235-193. Four Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against it.^[53] A month later, the bill died in the Senate by a vote of 57-40, with five Republicans and most Democrats in opposition.^[54]

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized the contention that Ryan's plan would reduce the deficit, alleging that it only considered proposed spending cuts and failed to take into account tax changes. According to Krugman, Ryan's plan "would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population" and produce a $4 trillion revenue loss over ten years from tax cuts for the rich. Krugman went on to label the proposed spending cuts a "sham" because they depended on making a severe cut in domestic discretionary spending without specifying the programs to be cut, and on "dismantling Medicare as we know it," which is politically unrealistic.^[55]

In response to Krugman, economist and former American Enterprise Institute scholar Ted Gayer wrote a more positive assessment of the Ryan plan. Gayer agreed that, as written, the plan would cause a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over 10 years. He noted, however, that Ryan had expressed a willingness to consider raising rates in his tax plan.^{[clarification needed]} Gayer concluded that "Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax... makes a useful contribution to this debate."^[56]

Journalist Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in National Review, argued that the revenue loss to which Krugman refers is based on a comparison between Ryan's plan and current law, which "includes middle-class tax increases... cuts in payment to Medicare providers... [and] the expansion of the Alternative Minimum Tax."^[57] He added that "current law automatically raises the tax rates to pre-Bush levels in 2013... so if you're comparing the tax level with current law, Ryan's plan represents a tax cut" and "the CBO's actual projections for the Ryan plan show a debt level in 2021 that is $4.7 trillion lower than its projections for Obama's budgets."^[57]

Rick Foster, the chief actuary of Medicare, endorsed Ryan's plan for reducing Medicare costs: "If you can put that pressure on the research and development community, you might have a fighting chance of changing the nature of new medical technology in a way that makes lower costs like this possible and more sustainable. I would say that the Roadmap has that potential. There is some potential for the Affordable Care Act price reductions, although I’m a little less confident about that."^[58]

In December 2011, it was revealed that Ryan would begin a new push for changes in Medicare in 2012 by working with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon to modify Ryan's previous Medicare proposal. His most recent approach for semi-privatization of Medicare would keep traditional Medicare as an option for senior citizens, but would also introduce private insurance into an exchange market to compete with traditional Medicare. Seniors would still be given a voucher to purchase care if they so desired, as in his previous proposal. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has supported a similar plan in his campaign.^[59]

Opposition to SOPA[link]

On January 9, 2012, four months after the introduction of Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Ryan pledged his opposition to the bill, saying, "The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address legitimate problems, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House."^[60]

Political campaigns[link]

Ryan was first elected to the House in 1998, when two-term incumbent Mark Neumann retired from his seat in order to make an unsuccessful bid for the Senate. Ryan won both a Republican primary over 29-year-old pianist Michael J. Logan of Twin Lakes and the general election against Democratic opponent Lydia Spottswood.^[61] Ryan successfully defended his seat against Democratic challenger Jeffrey C. Thomas in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.^[62] In 2002, Ryan had also faced Libertarian candidate George Meyers.

2008[link]

Ryan defeated Democratic nominee Marge Krupp by a wide margin in the 2008 general election.^[62]

2010[link]

Ryan defeated both Democratic nominee John Heckenlively and Libertarian nominee Joseph Kexel by a wide margin in the 2010 general election.

Electoral history[link]

Personal life[link]

Ryan married Janna Little, a tax attorney,^[1] in December 2000.^[8] The Ryans live in Janesville with their three children Elizabeth Anne, Charles Wilson, and Samuel Lowery.^[63]

Ryan is a Catholic and is a member of St. John Vianney's Church.^[64]

Ryan is a fitness enthusiast and promotes fitness as a daily routine for young people. In 2009, his exercise program was based on the P90x fitness program.^[22]

References[link]