trade union leaders that want to actually disrupt our country. >> with taxpayers pay 1 hundred million pounds to the system to make workers redundant is the prime minister aware 1 hundred million pounds for five new planes to be built for our red arrows. is there not a better use? >> i strongly support british aerospace. extraordinarily strong british company to have the full backing of the british government and enormous order book in terms of the strategic defense review and massive backing from us in terms of selling aircraft and typhoons all over the world to countries that need them. there have been issues and difficulties which is why we put in and the enterprise zone and everything to help those people and that company. >> does the prime minister share my belief or the belief of leaders of the opposition that

now is not the time to strike until negotiations are being completed. >> the hon. gentleman makes a very good point. just in case anyone didn't get it the first time in these strikes are wrong at a time when negotiations are going on. negotiations are going on. the leader of the opposition should think they're wrong. he doesn't think they're wrong because he is in the pocket of the trade union leaders. >> abolishing the conflict for the very first time. these hard-working people, we hear lots of statements on behalf of the families. these hard-working people preaching in mountains are demonized but there men and women and enough is enough.

>> i know people feel strongly about this but we have a responsibility to deliver an affordable public sector pensions system. we rejected the idea of leveling down public sector pensions. what we will deliver in terms of public-sector pension is a generous and fair offer which will give public sector pensions unlike others in our country a defined benefit system. that is why lauren hutton says this is an incredibly generous offer. what a pity it is that the party opposite has left reality and won't back that view. >> andrew begum. >> the prime minister will know that i recently held to my constituency, many of those small businesses complain bitterly about what they have to jump through. what message can the prime minister -- rebuild the economy against bureaucratic opposites.

>> that is why we introduced the red tape challenge to make sure these rules are published on line and businesses and individuals can tell us which ones can be scrapped without harming public safety. at the same time we have the one in one out rules the ministers cannot introduce a new regulation until they strapped an existing regulation. this government is determined to scrap unnecessary regulation and held business to employ more people in our country. >> the spending review from prime minister sent to the additional -- and impact. to see what tax credits can see how many more children will be in poverty in coming years. >> what we're doing in terms of the child tax credit is going to be free hundred ninety pounds higher than at the time of the last election. that is a 250 pound increase this year. that is the largest ever increase in the child tax credit

and we are adding a further 135 pounds next year. an increase of 5.2%. that is what is happening in terms of child tax credit. let me make this point in addition. if you increase the pension you actually see child poverty figures go up under the definition used by the party opposite. it is right we increase the pension. i don't think you harm the chances of children by giving pension what we have given which is a record cash increase in pensions next year. >> let me ask the prime minister to ensure this house remain a free and democratic institutions culpable will lead to voters and does he share my indignation that some members asked permission -- >> order! order! there is a matter of basic courtesy here. the question from the hon. lady should be heard. i think she has completed her question but it really is a

lesson for the future when questions are being asked and they should be heard with courtesy and when the answers are given whatever member is speaking they should be heard with courtesy. the prime minister. >> i think it is genuinely baffling to people that somebody who said they want back strike action while negotiations were under way has come to the house of commons today to speak on behalf of trade union leaders. i want to flashback that even neil kinnock wasn't as bad as that. >> does the prime minister if think it is fair that the chancellor yesterday decided to take three hundred million air strips on the bank and 1.3 billion from working families? is that a fair distribution? the chancellor announced we would be taking 2.5 billion pounds off of the banks not in one year because of a 1-off

bonus tax but every single year and it is this government properly putting a tax on the bank. that is the party opposite that year after year gave knighthood to fred goodwin and didn't regulate the banks or tax them properly and gave as the biggest boom and the biggest bust we have to recover from. >> last but not least mr. roger williams. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i welcome the reduction in corporation tax and that will encourage those businesses to expand 90% of the businesses in my constituency are not incorporated and won't benefit from a reduction. will the prime minister in sure that in the spring budget these businesses and given similar tax incentives so that they can insure they will go to their full potential in the economy and communities they serve. >> appraise the hon. john:for the magnificence specimen underneath his nose and the effort he spent.

we are not going to wait for the budget in order to help these businesses. we already extended the rate relief freeze for small businesses and the national loan guarantee scheme that will help small businesses get access to credit. that is up and running soon. >> the minister for the cabinet office and the pace of our master general. ipo -- >> you're on c-span2 we leave the british house of commons as they move to other legislative business. you have an watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesday at 7:00 eastern while parliament is in session. you can see this week's question time again sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can watch recent video including programs dealing with other international issues.

>> within 90 days of my inauguration every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and back home in america where they belong. >> george mcgovern's pledge in the 1972 convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota several landslide defeat to president nixon but his groundbreaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured on c-span's the contenders from the mcgovern center for leadership in mitchell, south dakota friday at 8:00 eastern. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch the public policy events and every weekend

elitist nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our scandals on our web site and join the conversation on social media sites. >> the chairman of the council of economic advisers, alan krueger spoke of the white house briefing about a payroll tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. alan krueger outline the administration's proposal to extend the tax cut to spur the economy. this is 20 minutes. >> any more stragglers? i meant that in the best possible way. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. sorry. i didn't hear that. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i apologize for the delay this afternoon. i have with me the president's chairman, chairman of the

president council of economic advisers, alan krueger recently confirmed by the senate. he is here to discuss with you the economic importance of the payroll tax cuts and expanding it into next year as well as the importance it has had to our economy and to 1 sixty million americans this year. what i would like to do is have him go at the top for you to address whatever questions you have on the policy issues to him. you may have some political questions more appropriately directed at me. i will be here to take them from you. and i will let alan go back to his important and difficult work and i will remain to take questions on other subjects. with that i give your alan krueger. >> thanks, jay. i thought i would say a few words about how the economy is doing and extending the payroll

tax cuts. this is a critical time for the economy and it is a time when the economy could use more medicine and to strengthen and sustain the recovery. as you know, a year ago, congress passed and a president signed two percentage point reduction in the payroll tax. that tax cut has provided support for the economy especially at a time when the economy was hit with some shocks such as rising gasoline prices and supply side shocks from the earthquake in japan and the problems in europe. the president has proposed expanding the payroll tax cut to 3.1% on the employee's side as well as cutting payroll taxes for employers, focusing the payroll tax cut for employers on small-businesses and businesses that are expanding. i think the economic argument for these proposals is quite

compelling. across the spectrum of economists you would find support for applying this type of medicine to the economy. the economy has been recovering. we have had nine quarters of growth but the pace of growth has been moderate. we still have a great many underutilize resources. the other boy greatest 09%. we have underutilize factories and resources. fundamentally the economy is facing we can aggregate demand economists see for not enough spending in the economy and i think you can trade the reason for the weak demand directly to the problems that cause economic prices. families borrow too much in the run-up. they are paying down debt. we had a severe bubble in the

housing market and potential construction has been quite flat in the economy really unprecedented have a economy where residential production has not been increasing and on top of that state and local government which retains employees' when they rig getting support from the recovery act. they had been laying off workers. i think those are reasons why the economy has not been stronger. at the same time i think it is important to provide insurance for the economy again. further possible shots down the road. if the payroll tax is not extended, the typical family with $50,000 in earnings would pay an $1,000 tax increase starting in january. what the president has proposed is extending that tax cut and expanded it to the typical

family to have a $1,500 tax cut and as i mentioned the other components in the jobs that employers tax cut as well as extending unemployment benefits. so i am happy to take questions. >> are you asserting that the extension of the cuts would make the economy better? or are you just saying it will make the economy worse? >> both are true. the president proposed extending and expanding tax cuts so the beneficial effect we saw from the last round would be larger. i also think that the tax cuts on the employer's side are particularly well designed. the cbo has concluded that the type of incremental payroll tax the president has proposed has high bang for the buck compared to other things that constrained in the economy and if the tax credit spires that will be a

$1,000 increase in taxes for the typical family which would be a drag on economic growth going forward. you can see economists across the spectrum who have noted that this could cause a severe drag to growth going forward if allowed to transpire. >> at the same level that woodstock thing about 2%. that wouldn't do anything to increase demand. they're already getting that cuts. >> compared to letting it expire certainly would support the economy. >> in terms of unemployment insurance the extension we are talking about is failure to contend that with a similar effect on aggregates. >> if you look at cbo's list they looked at 11 policy being considered. extending unemployment benefits, they concluded had the biggest effect on the economy for dollars spent. the unemployed have a high

propensity to spend their benefits because they have little income running in savings. i think extending unemployment benefits as well would help to support with the recovery going forward. >> the senate majority leader tom reed said the failure to extend payroll tax cuts would send the economy into a recession would be the same. do you agree or disagree with that? >> what is clear is extending payroll tax cuts will threaten the recovery. without it it will be a drag on economic growth. forecast if you look at private sector forecasts for fairly moderate growth perhaps not furrowing it to bring down unemployment without the extension of the payroll tax cut which is why the president proposed extending and expanding it. >> is that in session or not? >> what i can say from looking

at the evidence is this is the medicine we can use in the near term to strengthen the recovery and help provide insurance against jobs that are coming. >> he mentioned problems with the euro zone. how much of a drag on this economy and gdp growth do you expect for the rest of this year and next year? >> number of economists pointed out the problems in the euro zone our potential threat to the u.s. economy and economies worldwide through financial channels and exports, 20% of our exports go to europe. if one looks at the potential problems for economic growth coming from europe it even strengthened the argument for strengthening our own demand here at home as the payroll tax cut is an extremely testable way

of doing that. looking around the developments in the world i think helps strengthen the argument for the president's proposal. >> given the payroll tax or social security trust fund are you not concerned at all that this will have an effect on policy and social security and also like this every year, what you're going for? the tax increase will be delayed, why not do a whole structural change so of that we don't have to have this conversation every year? >> on your first question i don't think this jeopardizes the social security trust fund. the trust fund is made whole by general revenue that the chief actuary has stated does not affect the solvency of social security. moreover the president proposed a way to pay for the extension

and expansion of the payroll tax cut as well as the american jobs act. over the ten year period, the budget would be held neutral with respect to these cuts. the second question, looking at a pace of the recovery, the threat we face today is critical that we extend the payroll tax cut and expanded. down the road we expect the economy will be stronger and the natural process of recovery takes over. >> in 2013? >> let me say the recovery has been more sluggish than we expect coming out of recession because of the nature of the problems that created the crisis. because consumers built up so much debt they're working with their way down from problems in the housing market. we are seeing the economy hill.

it is just not healing fast enough. these measures would sustain the recovery down the road as measures wouldn't be necessary. >> quick follow-up. it seems the language many in the white house are using about whether the payroll tax cut extension would be paid for, it is shifting a little bit in terms of our important is that it is actually passed in consultation with the extension. with the president signed legislation that extended the payroll tax cut if it weren't paid for? >> the president proposed ways to pay for it. senate democrats came up with an alternative way to pay for it which the president has said he could support. i think both of those our sensible approaches. and i think what we need to do is look for a way to extend the

tax cuts which make that common sense. >> all right. >> about a third of small businesses would be taxed additionally if you had to tax the so-called millionaire's tax. what does that mean for the economy that pays for in terms of small business by taxing them additionally? >> tax on incomes above $1 million a year would hit very few small businesses. the vast majority--99% of individuals with small business income would not be affected by this. the vast majority of employers would be unaffected by what was proposed and paid for by the payroll tax exemption. >> you propose to put a

permanent tax on millionaires in exchange for a temporary tax cut. what would be easy affect of the surtax on economic -- >> the way to analyze economic effect is to say when does the tax take effect? a tax to pay for it take effect? those are not at the same time the tax cut would be immediate. it would be for virtually all working families. focused on families with moderate income. so then look at what the propensity to spend out of income for different groups affected by the tax cut in a way that is paid for the families that would be affected by the tax cuts had to have a higher marginal propensity to spend. those in upper income groups with incomes above $1 million a year 10 to have lower marginal propensity to consume. so i think you were thinking how will this affect the economy in

the short run or the long run? this strengthens the economy now and ensuring that it is done in a fiscally responsible way. >> you said it would be a $1,000 tax increase and this would be a $1,500 tax cut. >> what baseline do you use? if you compare the status quo, if the payroll tax cut is not extended, starting in january, an increase in payroll taxes for virtually all workers of 2%. for family earning $1,000 earning $50,000 that equates to a $1,000 tax increase. what the president has proposed is extending and expanding the payroll tax cuts of 3.1% compared -- allowed to expire. >> the president wants to extend

unemployment benefits. you did a study suggesting longer people are out of work the more time they spent looking for work. how does that square with getting people more benefits and staying unemployed longer? >> i hope you read the study. there's a lot of research on the effects of extended unemployment benefits. unemployment benefits more generally. there's a fair amount of consensus in the economics profession that there are trade offs involved. particularly if you look at normal time when we are close to full unemployment, that higher benefits for extended benefits do have some effect on activity. that affect is greatly reduced now when we have over 4 job seekers for every vacancy. the effect of any individual perhaps taking more time to find a job than suitable for him or

her is going to have less effect on other job seekers available through those positions. that is on the one hand. on the other hand another effect of unemployment benefits is it provides critical income support for families going through a difficult time. i mentioned earlier the unemployed have high marginal propensity to spend at out of benefits they receive paid for their mortgages and help prevent foreclosures on food and so on which supports the economy more generally. when the cbo looked at this and weighed these factors, came to the conclusion which is a sensible conclusion that extending unemployment benefits provides the biggest bang for the buck in terms of strengthening consumption in the economy and creating jobs. taking all those factors into account. >> i want to follow up, whether the white house would accept

payroll tax cuts or the extension without it being paid for. in mention the president--the democrats had a proposed land both make sense. what i would like to know is whether it would be ok to do it without either one of them without being one acceptable outcome given the economic policy. >> i don't want to go into what might happen if the senate hasn't voted on the bill that senator casey has proposed. i can tell you that from my perspective, i believe the administration's perspective doing this a way that makes economic sense is the way to proceed and i am sure the president would consider whether it is a central economic strategy moving forward. it is important that the senate consider and the legislation that is before it which pays for this with the way the senate democrats -- >> it makes economic sense to in

a recession to -- even if it does increase the deficit long term. would you agree with that? >> i would need to look at what the proposals are and wait until that point but hopefully jay can talk about that. >> you don't have -- in a perfect world does it make sense in this economy to actually finally pay for it. for this. >> i don't want to go into specifics about -- some paperwork makes sense and some don't. at this point the right fiscal path for the country is to try to support, try to support the economy in the short run and do it in a fiscally responsible way which is over a period of the ten year window which is common to having to be paid for which

the presidents proposed. [inaudible conversations] >> i have gotten it three times. we won't speculators bought what might happen if senate republicans do not hear the call. the vast majority of the american people to vote in favor of extending and expanding the payroll tax cut and paste in for it in a way that is economically responsible and broadly supported by the american people, americans of all political persuasion. that hasn't happened yet. we hope enough senators vote for it that it will move to the house and be signed into law by the president. it would be nice if a simple majority of senators were allowed to vote on it and send it to the house and the president's desk. we know a vast majority of the american people supported. we won't speculators bought end game. if certain things do or don't happen in the senate. couple more for alan. >> is there some reason?

>> i want to ask about the national debt. it top $15 trillion a couple weeks ago and is now bearing down on 100% of gdp. does that worry you? >> i think it is very important we get on a sustainable fiscal path. it is important we measure the debt in the right way. hold that a side. the president proposed in september -- gave a proposal to the supercommittee to help put us on a fiscally sustainable path and i think as we strengthen the economy in the short run we need to do two things at once. we need to strengthen the economy in the short run and return to a fiscally sustainable path. >> congress extended 2% to lower the unemployment rate next year? >> i think if you look

independent estimates from across the spectrum they would predict extending the payroll tax cut or extending it would lead to a stronger economic growth and more unemployment than would otherwise be the case. .. extending the payroll tax cut without an expansion? i haven't heard that. >> i'm going to rewind what jay

said. >> yeah. >> the senate is considering a bill later this week which has a way to pay for it. the president proposed a way to pay for it. and we're open to economically sensible ways of trying to strengthen the economy and doing it in a fiscally sustainable way. >> during the speech today in scranton, pennsylvania, president obama is expected to urge congress to extend and expand the payroll tax cut. afterwards, he travels to new york city for campaign events. >> on c-span2 this morning, steny hoyer >> i look at why a country does well and why it doesn't.

i think it's a fundamental values thing. it's not natural resources. these are two really crucial values. do you believe the future can be different than the present? and do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. some places they have it. some places they don't. in the u.s. we have an exaggerated sense of how much control we have. >> this sunday your questions for author and "new york times" op-ed columnist david brooks. he'll take your calls, emails and your topics. his bestselling books include bobos in pair days and the latest the social animal. david brooks david brooks on noon eastern on c-span2. [applause] >> house minority whip steny hoyer held this town hall meeting yesterday focused on economic issues. in it, the maryland congressman outlines some of his budget proposals including raising the retirement age.

he also takes questions on college tuition and foreign policy. from the university of maryland in college park, this is just over an hour. >> next we have our town hall meeting with the congressman. and for those who don't know what a town hall is, i'll give you a little sense of what to expect. first, the congressman will make some remarks and then he will take questions. now, one of the key aspects of a town hall meeting is the question. so as the professor, i'm here to remind you of what a question is. [laughter] >> a question is a short statement of inquiry that ends with the expectation of a response. the keywords, response.

some of you may be tempted to play the role of a professor and give a lecture or a speech and that's not inappropriate. we'll have a few words from the congressman about his outlook for the economy, for the state of the nation and then we will take some questions. we have three or four students who will have the honor of asking the first few questions. they are brilliant sophomore freshmen from the university of maryland i will say i helped with that. they are my students. [laughter] >> the congressman is back. [applause] >> i want to say that i don't know that i had that exact drill before where i got up and sat down and got up again. it does give you the opportunity to leave, however.

many of you showed poor judgment and didn't. i'm pleased at that. before i begin, i want to thank the center for american politics and citizenship for the role that they play in ensuring access and transparency in government, and promoting careers in public service. young people at the end of this speech, i'll say something more about career and public service and america's need for your participation. capc is helping the military personnel and citizens overseas vote. thank you very much for that, paul, and all those working with you. this first of its kind system resulted in military and overseas voters being 20% more likely to cast their ballot in 2010 then those who received their ballot by mail. 20%. the centers work running the

maryland election center is important for the citizens of our state. ensuring marylanders know where to vote on election day. that's a critical issue, students. we've add supreme court case recently that, frankly, allows very, very large contributions without knowing the source. the problem without knowing the source, you do not tell you why they're telling you something on these 30 second, 40-second ads you see too often in my opinion, but they have the right to do that. our court said they have the right to do that but you need to consider the source and if you can't find out the source, that's a problem. that's why this transparency is so critically important. nancy copp is one of our public

officials . she's a wonderful lady serving. there is nothing wrong with making contributions. the constitution of the united states guarantees that citizens can address their government and address their grievances. it is a absolutely critical right in a democracy. and spending money exercising that right is an appropriate thing to do. but, again, transparency is critical so that you know and i know who's contributing for whom and for what reason and do they have an underlying motive. many students from its capitol hill internship program have

interned for me. paul was a fellow, of course. that is a very, very high fa-lutan nonpaid staffer. but he has been sending me some wonderful, wonderful interns. steven mooney and danielle royal -- steven, where are you? steven is in the back. steven, stand up. danielle? is danielle there, steven? danielle is there? thank you very much for what you're doing in our office and thank you very much, capc for providing such talented people. i spoke a few minutes ago about the difficulty of summoning political courage in a time of division. today we're finding ourselves in one of those moments. when it comes to the challenges of our debt, we've just seen what happens when political courage is lacking or when

parties refuse to compromise and come to consensus. as we come back from the thanksgiving holiday, we sadly have seen little progress on deficit reduction. in order to avoid the difficult and wrenching process of sequestation and without the agreement the subcommittee was supposed to have reached, congress will have to act. sequestration for those who may not -- you know what sequestation means but you may not know what the impact of the federal. i suggest from anybody's standpoint an irrational process. it's an irrational process because it opines that we will cut across-the-board irrespective of priority. if you and others in your business and your family and your personal lives need to not spend an extra $10 a week, the

probability is you don't spend the $10 on the thing you think is least needed in your life. however, if you had sequestration and you had $100, you would cut 20 cents of everything you did. across-the-board, without regard to priority. simpson bowles, dominici rivlin and the so-called gang of 16 which was a group of republican and democratic senate, three each which has now expanded to almost 45 members of the united states senate, a combination have all suggested a combination of revenue cuts. and spending constraints and the raising of additional revenue. the federal budget -- and i want the young people particularly -- 'cause you're going to have to pay the bill.

in a radio town hall i'll say that. my father and stepfather both fought in world war ii. my father was too old to go into battle, so he was station just ahead at a p.o.w. of officer camp in texas and my stepfather served in the pacific theater, was shot down in the ballot of the coral sea. he came back. tom brokaw called them the greatest generation. my fear is that my generation, if we do not act and act quickly, with courage and conviction and wisdom, we will be known as the greediest, most selfish generation. and, young people, you ought to be very angry about the position that we are putting your country in, and the legacy you're about to inherit of deep, deep debt.

it is not only an intellectual bankrupt policy we've been following but it's an immoral policy as well. we need to get a handle on the budget. simpson bowles commission was appointed by president obama and by members of the leadership of both houses in the congress of the united states. they met. they came up with a proposal to cut $4 trillion, through a combination of effort. there are essentially five components of our federal budget. one, you cannot do anything with. nor should we. and that is payment of interest on the debt that we've already borrowed. the other four are subject to change. one is nondefense discretionary spending. student loans fall in that category. education falls in that category. health spending falls in that category. the running of our entire

government falls in that category. the second category that we can affect is discretionary spending that is defense spending. they are about equally divided of about 32% of the budget. it's about 16% for each of those, a little less for domestic. a little more for defense. but about equally divided. the fourth category so-called tax expenditures. without changing any rates, if we reduced tax expenditures we will have an additional $1.1 trillion of revenue. that is because we would eliminate so-called loopholes or more appropriately tax reference items. reducing those would -- or eliminating them would provide an additional 1.1 trillion. that is more money than we

collect in income taxes in the united states of america. so you can see that one of the ways that we can get to where we need to be, that $4 trillion -- i'll explain why $4 trillion is the objective is simply by saying, no, whatever you earn, we won't change the rates or up your tax rates but we will say you will pay that rate on the income you earn and there won't be preference items. there are three major preference items for the individual. the major preference item is the deduction for health care expenses. the second for mortgage expenses and the third for pension expenses. there are other -- a lot of other preferences for individuals and for corporations. but they mount up to $1.1 trillion of what bowles simpson referred to as tax expenditures. the $4 trillion objective that

bowles simpson, dominici rivlin and the gang of 6 was trying to get to, it is because that figure that fiscal experts tell us the debt level is sustainable. it's about 70 -- a little less than 70% of your debt to gdp, gross domestic product. that everything we make in america. we are now $15 trillion of debt, with a t. none of us can conceive what a trillion dollars is, i think. but it's a lot of money and it would take an extraordinary amount of money out of your pocket, and your children and their children and their children's children will take to amortize that debt if we do not set ourselves on a fiscally responsible path. those of you who read the papers know that part of our fiscal problems is caused by the fiscal instability in europe. greece is the particular example

to which we look. greece has a debt level of about 128% debt load to its gdp. now, the good news for america is -- and the bad news for agrees -- the bad news for greece, they do not have the resources themselves to solve the problem they have created. they're going to need help from outside. the good news is, america has the resources to address its debt difficulty, its debt crisis, its debt challenge. if we have the political courage and will to do so. and we can create agreement on how to get that done. the super committee, the called super committee or the deficit reduction task force failed in that effort. i urged them over the seven days

before they concluded their work on a monday and said, we can't get to a resolution of the objective that has been given to us, i urged them to extend their life by 90 days because in my view, failure is not an option for our country. we must get to a fiscally responsible, sustainable path, or your young people will not have the sustainable kind of country that i inherited from my family and my generation. you need to be angry about that, energized about that. and focused about it. it's much harder, of course, to cut which sacred cow to butcher than to spare. you sit around and say we're going to get that cow or that cow. and you like cows.

you don't want to take any of them. in a democracy, in a body like this, if we were all here, every one of you wants to spend money on different things. and you think they are very high priorities. if you are in a collegial body, a legislative body, a council or a commission, the city council, the mayor is here. where's the mayor? he was here. the inkling is to add on, not to choose. choosing is tough. choosing and making alternative choices is tough. it's tough in our personal lives. it's tough in our corporate lives and it's tough in our government. same time we must also remain, however, relentlessly focused on jobs. you need to bring this deficit down. but we also need to grow our economy, because if you don't grow your economy, you will never get your deficit challenge

resolved. why? because your revenues will continue to be substantially down and the demands on government will increase so you will have opposite of what you want, more jobs, less demands. there is no alternative but to succeed. i'm hopeful as we go back to congress tomorrow that i will be able to work with members of both sides of the aisle, and say, yes, there are sacred cows, yes we would like to ask no one to tighten their belts, no reduction in expenditures and no increases in revenue. that would be a short-term solution, but it would be a long-term catastrophe. so, young people, i'm pleasedtory ebay to talk about these issues as we move into the

second decade of this millennium as we move into the decade in which you will lead. i hope we will not leave you a legacy of debt but we leave you legacy of a fiscal sustain i can't believe place. we were at balance. we are at surplus. bill clinton is the only president in my lifetime -- i don't know that there may be somebody in this audience older than me. well, there is at least one that i know of. [laughter] >> senator tidings, but neither senator tidings nor i were alive at the last time we had four years of budget surplus. the only president in my lifetime to have accomplished that was senator -- was

president bill clinton. now, let me tell you how we as a country accomplished that. we had a republican majority who kept restraint on spending. you had a democratic president who said we need those revenues to save social security and to make sure that we were able to pay for our defense and our domestic security needs. and we had an economy, a private sector, information technology explosion in our economy. so it wasn't democrats. it wasn't republicans. it wasn't simply the private sector. it was all three all acting in concert. not because they necessarily agreed but because there was a multiparty responsibility. let me again suggest to you that the reason i believe now is the time to accomplish this objective because it's almost impossible to make the very tough decision on entitlements. i don't think i mentioned

entitlements. that's the fourth. i said tax expenditures are the fourth, entitlements are the fourth. there are 55 to 70 million people who receive transfer payments from the federal government. many rely on those to survive. and need to be protected. but many do not rely on those payments to survive or even to do well. but they believe strongly they work for those entitlements, and they ought to get them. i think that's an understandable sentiment. but we're going to have to ask all of us. unlike greece who is going to sacrifice, is simply make a contribution to solve this issue. and those of you who see those people now demonstrating, occupying wall street if you will -- in my opinion, that occupy wall street movement reflects an anger, an angst and,

yes, a fear about the future of the country. the middle class in america is shrinking. that is not a policy that we ought to allow to continue. every country that i've ever been to has very poor people. and every country that i've been to has very rich people. every country. america's uniqueness and strength came from-it broad middle class that was making good wages, was able to buy houses and cars and education for children and groceries and clothes and all those things that people made here in america. let me end with an agenda item that i'm pushing very hard. and it's called make it in america. it's an agenda which says america has a dream and that dream is that all of us will have the opportunity to realize

the american dream of success, not just financial success but success in accomplishing our objectives and living a quality of life. that was the american dream. and there are a lot of people who don't believe that dream is alive for them and are fearful that it won't be alive for all of you. make it in america means you're going to make it. you're going to succeed. you're going to ace the test. you're going to get the job. you're going to win the game. you're going to make it. but it also means that you're going to make it in america. you're going to manufacture it in america. you're going to grow it in america. and you're going to sell it here and around the world. why is manufacturing so important? because manufacturing creates of a middle class. and pays on average 22% more than average wages in other types of jobs. and it gives to working people

the opportunity to make sufficient money, to have sufficient security and health care so they and their families are living in a not comfortable way, but in a satisfying quality way of life way. so i want you to remember that make it in america agenda. i want you to believe that you will make it in america. i want you to believe that america is going to make it and one of the ways we're going to do it, we're going to spur manufacturing, making things in america. now, they can be very high tech things. we, obviously, saved the automobile industry, something i think which is very important for our country and it saved millions of jobs. because manufacturing jobs have the biggest leveraging effect on other jobs on any other kind of enterprise. so, young people, we're going to

make it. we're going to make it working together. we're going to make it talking to one another. we're going to make it by doing what john kennedy asked us to do. not what our cup can do for us, but what we can do for our country. let me hear your questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> hello, congressman. >> hi. how are you? >> i'm good. how are you? >> terrific. >> my name is kelly and my question is, as a proud supporter of the federal pell grant program, how you will you support the pell grant program that has given up to $6,000 for students and aid with the unstable economy and republicans are certain to shut it down? >> well, first of all, we'd like to -- from a partisan standpoint, the democrats have been very strong supporters of

pell grants. pell grants historically replace 70% of the basic cost of college. not room and board, not meals, but 70% of tuition costs. they're now down to some -- they were down as low as 31%. they're now probably 32, 33, 34%. we upped pell grants in the last congress under democratic leadership is one of our proud accomplishments, to which a proposal to decrease those, they're not going to be decreased. president obama has made it very clear. he'll veto any bill that decreases pell grants and that we've made it very clear that we have the votes to sustain his veto. i'm a whip. i don't know follow-up what a whip is, because whip counts votes. i'll give you a quick -- in england they had fox hunts. the horses ran after the foxes. but the horses ran after the dogs actually. they had a pack of dogs running after the fox.

and they had two horse riders on either side with whips keeping the hounds in a pack going after the fox. they were called the whippers. that's what the whip does. tries to keep the hounds in a pack going after whatever our objective is. so i'm the whip. and so i count votes and we have the votes to make sure at least through january 20th of 2013, that that will not be changed. now why? so i can say, oh, i'm going to give you more money? that's not why we have pell grants. we have pell grants because we know america will not be the great country that we want it to be, will not be the successful country that we want it to be if we don't educate the rest of the world. we've done that in the last century. we have the greatest institutions of higher learning in the world in america. but if they're not accessible to

average students, could you find brilliance in the poorest neighborhoods as well as in the richest neighborhoods? so in america we believe that you needed to provide access. when i came to the university of maryland, students, this is really going to hurt you, students. you're really going to wince. and when you tell your parents, they're going to wince even further. i was a commuting student. i worked 3:30, 12:00 at night at cia as a file clerk. my first semester at the university of maryland was $86. [laughter] >> again, that was in 1847. [laughter] >> 1957, clearly, college costs have escalated very substantially. it is in america's interest, is

it in your interest, yes, but that's not why we ask taxpayers to invest. we ask taxpayers to invest to make sure that you and the brilliant people in this room so that you have access so that our society and country will be better. we're going to continue to fight for that. >> thank you. [applause] >> hello. all those guys who had such great things to me are walking out. they've heard this before, you understand. >> hello. my name is mary. >> mary and i had an opportunity to take a picture. >>io yes. >> remember. why doesn't congress allow a bill allowing people to take out an amount of their 401ks without penalties? >> well, we've done that to some

degree. some years ago we allowed you first of all to keep it in for an extra year so you didn't have to take it out and take a penalty. i think that's a good suggestion. we haven't recommended that yet. for one thing, frankly, it's a little perverse. americans are saving more now but we are not a good savings country. we're not a good savings culture. we tend to be spenders. now people are worried and what do you do when you're worried that you won't get another at the point in your pocket. that you got $10 now but you're not sure you're going to get $10 tomorrow, you tend to hold on to that $10 so savings is up, but that's a good suggestion. the other suggestion that is being made by the president of the united states is to cut the fica tax. that's the social security tax, to cut it in half, the 3.5 fica and medicare tax, cut it in half by 3.5%. it's now 7%.

you cut it 7%. both for recipients and for individuals. that will cost about $240 billion. is that right, james, in that neighborhood, about 240? frankly, i've supported that proposal but i will tell you that i have reservations about it. first of all, we don't have any money to give anybody any money, we'd have to borrow that. i'm not so sure that borrowing -- if we're going to borrow that sum of money, that putting it in a infrastructure would not be a better return. because we would create jobs because at the end of the jobs created we would have something to be done, whether it would be a safer school, a stronger bridge, what have you, so i'm looking at that alternative. but i'll look at that alternative in terms of allowing people to take money out of their 401k without penalty

early. >> okay. thank you. >> you bet. [applause] >> good evening, my question is, as the 2011 year ends and we approach 2012, what goals do you plan on accomplishing by this time next year and how do you plan on achieving them? >> it's a tough, tough atmosphere in the house of representatives and united states senate. one of the things i urge my colleagues is not to think in 24-month cycles. now, do not begrudge the fact that members of the house of representatives think in 24-month cycles because that's theirlet they have a job for 24 months. they are very focused on what they can accomplish in 24 months, either defeating things, passing things, a combination of the two.

if you can't do it in 24 months you can't take it home to the constituents and say this is what i did. to come back and say, look, this is what i did, in 2019, or 2020 or '21, we're going to have the budget deficit down to 80% of gdp. well, that's great. what a wonderful thing that is. you'll only have $420 trillion in debt, but if i can come home i defeated this or passed this piece of legislation, in my view what i want to accomplish, what i think the congress ought to accomplish, what our country needs to accomplish which i think will be the sole biggest thing that we can do for our economy, with the psychology of our people and for the perception of the united states throughout the world is to get our country on a fiscally sustainable path. a credible fiscally sustainable path, a path that gets us that

$4 trillion reduction over the next decade in indebtedness. i think that will be in my opinion the single best thing that we can do for our country and for all of us. >> thank you. >> i will be working on that. >> thank you. >> good evening, congressman. i had another question about education. to my knowledge there's another bill going through congress talking about reprioritizing expenditures, in education, including cutting funding to arts and arts education. i wanted to ask your opinion on the bill that's going through right now. >> well, there has been a long-standing effort to reduce funding in arts and the humanities. i don't want you to take this wrong, but we spend a relatively small amount of money on those objects, relatively. and in my opinion we get a pretty good return.

when i say relatively small, we're talking under $200 million in terms of one of the programs here, 150 over there. and that's real money to any of us that's very significant sums of municipal but we have a $3.7 trillion budget. in my opinion, in that case, the return is an elevating of our culture and of our understanding of an appreciation of things that ennoble the human spirit. that may sound corny. but every great nation needs to pay attention to its culture, its performing arts, to its artist, sculptures, to its writers. and to every government in history, every great government in history has supported that to a much greater extent than does the united states of america. now, in the united states of america, one of the things we

have, we have a lot of generous people. and, of course, they get a tax preference for their generosity, like a series of tradeoffs. and many people are giving financial sums to the arts, to the humanities, to charitable culture and they get a tax benefit from that. if we eliminated all sums of preferences there would be people who would be worried about that endeavor. we spend a relatively small amount -- again, not a small amount in the sense of any of us in this room or from the university of maryland but in a sense of our overall expenditures in america. a relatively small amount on the encouragement of the arts. it is, i think, to our country's benefit that we make those investments. let me say something to all of you young people, and not that i'm excluding those who are

politely older than young people, but it is that you have a much bigger stake in what's going on. you will live with it much longer than some of the rest of us. it will impact your lives over the long term. and you need to be sensitive. there's a debate in washington about cutting spending. cutting spending -- spending is not all alike. i spent on a pell grant, i expect that to pay off for at least three-quarters of a century. if i spend on buying a new car, that may last for three, four, five, seven, eight, ten years. maybe longer. so those, however, investments that we make in education aren't just that. yes, they're spending, but they're investments on which we expect a return.

do we need to rein in excessive spending? the answer to that is yes. here at the university, states got tough times. why does the state have tough times. we have millions of people unemployed. they're not paying taxes. property values are down. property tax revenue are down. when that happens, obviously, you have to either borrow money to keep going or you have to reduce your expenditures or go into debt. at the federal level we've gone deeply into debt. at the state and local levels we can't do that. but we need to continue and invest, in my opinion, in the arts and the humanities. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> who's back here? paul's the boss. oh, you got a microphone back there. >> congressman hoyer, as it's

been known, the statements -- [inaudible] >> and that the imminent war in syria and iran is not leading to most of the threats -- [inaudible] >> on the naval force off the coast of syria. it's charged that a -- [inaudible] >> and does not want the u.s. and russia to collaborate in a new fdr or jfk-type of industrial recovery plan which the russians are very open to. that the russians are offering something like the fbi, they call it the sbe. the question is this, if we are going for a war against syria in iran which would be the trigger

for world war iii, would you -- if you want to talk encouragement and leadership, but would you join forces with other people that could take one answer to stop this war which is intended to trigger world war iii and that is to remove president obama as president because he's the one person that i know in the u.s. government who is committed to such a war. his own military has warned him do not attack syria or iran. so would you take the one action through impeachment or through the 25th amendment, section 4 which says a person mentally unstable they should be removed as president. >> your question is, we're live the courage to do that if i -- if i adopted your premise, the answer would be, i hope i would have the courage to do so, i don't adopt your premise. i think your premise is dead wrong. i think president obama has no intent to go to war either with syria or iran. i will tell you, however, that i believe that iran is a very,

very dangerous entity in today's world. it's led by mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad who has made it very clear that he wishes the destruction of israel, destruction of some of his neighbors in the middle east and the destruction of america. and he is seeking nuclear weapons. the entire world is concerned about that, not just president obama. the united nations is concerned about that effort by mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad and, of course, he's not in charge, khomeini is in charge in iran. in terms of syria, the arab world wants to see syria's leader removed because he is in the process of slaughtering his own people who want like the people in tahir square to adopt their open government. i don't adopt your premise.

i believe, president obama has shown great courage and great leadership in a very polarized environment in which the congress has been found impossible. i think it's lamentable but i think it's an accurate reflection on the present political situation that he confronts if, in fact, the intent by some is simply to defeat president obama, then any success that he would have in growing jobs or anything else would be counter-intuitive for that objective. furthermore, as it relates to president obama, libya is, i think, a perfect example where he wanted to in the most surgical way bring to a close a tyrannical dictatorship that was committing extraordinary human rights abuses. was killing its own people, that

threatened to annihilate the people of benghazi, and i think he did so in an extraordinarily successful way. not losing a single american life in the process but bringing to end one of the real tyrannical figures on the world stage. so i simply do not adopt your premise, but the answer to your question is, if i did, i would hope i would have the courage to act consistent with my convictio conviction. >> good evening, i had a question about wasteful spending -- >> wasteful spending. >> wasteful spending and just the particular kind that does affect our generation and that's our nation's drug policies. i was wondering if we continue to spend the same amount of money but haven't seen much result if you support our nation's drug policies. >> i don't know what exactly what you're referring to. we have changed some degree -- we changed something that i think was the right thing to do.

we had a disparate sentencing structure for cocaine and for crack. crack being mainly a drug used by a minority community. cocaine being used by a more affluent community, whether they were a minority or not. a more affluent group of people. one carrying a higher penalty by a factor of 5 to 10. i mean, five times. i thought that was wrong. we addressed that in a bipartisan way by the way. we addressed it -- the republican leadership was critical to getting that job done, as was democratic participation. the issue of drugs is a very serious one. a significant plurality if not majority of the prison beds in america and america has one of

the highest rates of any nation of the world. a significant number of beds who are, therefore, drug crimes, drug-related crimes. not simply for use, personal use, but for possession with intent to sell, or for the commission of crime to get money to use drugs or the commission of an assault or other violent crime while on drugs. extraordinary difficult question for us to deal with. we're not dealing it very successfully. we need to redouble our efforts. now, if you're asking am i for legalizing certain of these drugs, the answer to that is no. are you asking me if i think we should revisit how we treat potentially offenders who are not -- who are offenders because of use of drugs as opposed to commission of crimes while under the influence of drugs, i'm

certainly open to reviewing that because from an economic standpoint and from a penal standpoint, what we are doing is not working. >> thank you. >> hi steny hoyer. >> hi. i can't see you. i guess we can't move that mic over. is there an aisle there. have you been standing with the baby for a long time? i hope not. >> yes. >> i'm sorry. >> thank you so much for your service of district. i have four generations of my family in your district including my five little ones. and because of them there's an issue that's near and dear to my heart and that is finding and providing healthy safe food for them. >> food? >> healthy, safe food and there's a bill in congress right now that will help with that. what's been happening the past

several years actually the fda -- the fda has been targeting with farm rates and undercover sting operations on farmers providing local, safe food including raw unprocessed milk for families and especially if that milk comes from one station from another. in 1987, the fda issued regulations -- >> a lot of the voting public in the last election were thinking as exactly as your child is thinking, is not happy with me at all. >> she wasn't crying up until this. so basically the fda is spending millions of taxpayer dollars on conducting undercover sting operations on farmers who are providing a product that millions of americans are begging for. and there's a bill in congress

right now that would tecriminalize that and just relegalize the interstate transportation of raw milk intended for human consumption so i have a three part question for you, are you aware of this and if you are, do you support it? if you're not aware of it, will you spend 15 or 20 minutes discussing it with me so i can fill you in and ask for your support on the legislation. >> i'm not familiar with it. i know about it, but i'm not familiar with the legislation. clearly, are you familiar with that legislation? okay. let me say this, in an era where we all lived in a small village and we knew farmer jones or farmer brown and we were pretty confident that farmer brown would not sell us something that was tainted or was not healthy as you point out, we didn't need an fda perhaps. but we found that pretty soon we

did need an fda because we were dealing with people that we had no idea who produced the food, where it was produced and under what conditions it was produced and we saw a very substantial adverse health consequences coming from food which was not healthy. for your baby, for you, or four others so the fda was created for the purpose of making sure the drugs, the prescription drugs that we get and the food we get is, in fact, safe for human consumption. i think that is an absolutely critical function. but i will look at that bill to see if i believe there's, as you seem to think, some discrimination on what would otherwise be very healthy food and milk -- or milk -- what you're referring to specifically. but i will look at that and see what i think about it, but i will tell you, i believe the food and drug administration

performs a critical function for a safe america when you have 315, 325 million people in america and probably 1% of them has any real idea of where the food they eat comes from. but i will talk to you about it, okay? okay. and now that i'm not distracting you, maybe the baby will be happier. [laughter] >> thank you, congressman hoyer. you were talking about the fica tax and insolvency for medicare, medicaid and social security. i wonder if it's -- those agencies are at risk of becoming insolvent in the future, do you believe the retirement age and eligibility age for medicare should be raised at least for social security, 67 and --

>> in the past -- i gave a speech a couple of years ago in which i said everything needed to be on the table including ages. now why should ages be on the table. this is very controversial particularly in my party and some are very critical of me saying that. when social security was adopted in 1935, the average life expectancy was about 65.4 months. they set the age at 65. now the life expectancy for somebody like me is into my 80s. at least that's my expectation. [laughter] >> for some of you maybe even longer. but the fact of the matter, we're living very much longer lives and healthier lives. and more productive lives for much longer periods of time. in that context, it seems to me to be irrational to take that off the table. in fact, in 1983, before you were born, in 1983, ronald reagan, a republican president and tip o'neill a democratic

speaker of the house sat down together and they agreed that social security was going to go bankrupt. what that meant was that it's cash flow, the money being paid in -- social security was never really an investment fund. it was a pass-through fund because you started giving benefits immediately. you didn't build up any reserves. and as a result, those working paid into a system and those retiring took it out. it was pretty much a pass-through. for almost all of its used it had a surplus and we used that surplus to mask the depth of our debt and used that money to spend. but what ronald reagan and tip o'neill was said, look, we'll increase the age from 65 to 67 for social security retirement, which is 67 will be in about, i don't know, six, seven, eight, years, james. they phased it in one month a year and they didn't phase it in for 25 years. so everybody had an opportunity to get an understanding of what

they could expect. after all, if i promise you if you're 65, 66 years of age you're going to get x, you manage your finances based upon that, your savings, your cash flow, my mortgage payment, how am i going to do this, that and the other. so if we change the age, it has to be done significantly perspectively so that people have an opportunity to plan their lives around what they're going to be getting. that seems to me fair but i think it ought to be on the table. very controversial, however, as you know. >> thank you. you gave the right answer. >> pardon? okay. good. i'm glad i gave you the right answer. i'm always pleased when i can give the right answer. [inaudible] >> i'll go -- if you'll be quick, i'll be quick. we'll see if we can get through -- okay. >> i'm the de facto financial advisor for my 89-year-old mother. she lives on three checks, one which she earned from working

and she gets a retirement benefits from the federal government, one which she gets for social security and one which she gets for survivors annuity from my father. i'm also the representative payee for my younger sister who i do all the finances for because she's mentally ill. tell me what should i do as a representative payee, if you can explain some of the people what that is when congress is talking about cutting those programs? >> again, the key word for you is prospective, prospectively. your 87-year-old mother will have -- you will have no problem managing her finances. there will be no change in her finances. when i say that, i want to caveat, there is talk about applying a change cpi, not just to social security but to everything where there's a cpi adjustment, change cpi is three-tenths of a point less than the cpi so let's say the cpi this year social security is getting a cpi this coming

january to not get it in the last two as you well know. i think it's about 3.5%, james, is that correct? so it would be 3.2%, not 3.5%. except for that, except -- there would be no present benefit taken away from your mother. now, i believe that is the case as well for your sister? your sister? your sister. i believe the case would also -- that would also be the same case for your sister. now, the sister gets supplemental social security income, ssi. one of the things at the age when we mentioned that it was created. when social security was created, it was only for the person who turns 65 and only for them. there was no survivor benefit. if they were disabled prior to 65, there was no disability

benefit. if they died prior to 65 and they left children under 18, there was no survivor benefit. we've added a lot of benefits but in her case, little if any -- [inaudible] >> to the increase. but let me say something -- [inaudible] >> but let me say -- oh, no, we earned this. everybody ought to get it.

>> look, i'm a multibillionaire, why are you sending me 25,000 or $20,000 a month? not a month. a month. [laughter] >> a year. my point to you is that i have a feeling that your mom and your sister are very vulnerable and don't, as you pointed out, don't have a lot of cash or stocks or bonds or dividends they're getting. you want to make sure that they are okay. but the folks who have done better, not to penalize them but to say, you've done well. and your country needs some help. we're going to reduce you by three-tenths of a point and i think that would be fair and smart and good for all these young people. okay. that wasn't as quick as i intended to be. >> good evening. my name is alexander liken, i'm

a senior here at the university of maryland. first of all, thank you very much for the pell grant. and secondly, my question -- i'm very concerned -- >> thank you very much for taking advantage of it. >> no problem. i'm very concerned about the issue of climate change. in fact, i think that's the most serious issue facing our country this century. despite our current budget problems and our national debt, do you think we maybe should increase spending on research to help fight climate change and what do you plan to do to address this issue? >> i think alternative energy is probably one of the -- is the i.t. of the coming decades. it is the coming opportunity. alternative energy sources. we see that now in electric cars. we see it in the utilization of fossil fuels even in natural gas where there's a cleaner-burning fuel.