people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. now politics and policy news on c-span radio's "washington today." >> sundays starting at noon eastern on c-span radio. ♪ >> all in all, what we're proposing here is to cut $5.3 trillion in spending from the president's budget. this results in at least $3.3 trillion in deficit reduction compared to the president's budget. >> we will be moving forward with appropriations bills at the levels that everyone agreed to just last year. house republicans, i hope, would do the same. if they fail to do so, they will

once again threaten to shut down the government and needlessly imperil the economic recovery. >> reaction to a new republican budget plan outlined today by paul ryan, republican in wisconsin, the chair of the house budget committee. you heard just a moment ago senator kent conrad, democrat of north dakota. this republican plan which was unveiled today would bring back a controversial idea that would change medicare, given senior citizens more options, but democrats say the elderly would be left with higher out-of-pocket expenses. welcome to hour one of "washington today" here on c-span radio. i'm steve scully. thanks for being with us. later in the hour highlights from the prime minister's visit to the white house and on capitol hill. and in london, queen elizabeth on the throne for 60 years. her diamond jubilee. we'll have highlights of her remarks before parliament earlier today in london. it is primary day in illinois. voters getting the rare chance in that state to weigh in on a republican presidential race that already has not been

decided. a number of key congressional and legislative races as well across the state. from the chicago sun times website, turnout was light in the chicago area. heavier in republican strongholds where voters go to the polls knowing they are playing an important role in the battle between mitt romney and rick santorum. we'll have highlights tonight beginning at 7:00 eastern time here on c-span radio as we sum ul cast politico and a chance for you to hear from mitt romney who is in schaumburg, illinois and rick santorum who is in gettysburg, pennsylvania. their speeches, your calls and reaction later tonight here on c-span radio and live on c-span television. well, let's begin with our lead story. as republicans rallying around an election year budget proposed by congressman paul ryan that would cut $5.3 trillion in spending over the next decade compared to the president's budget. it would also slash the tax rates for households and businesses. now, the blueprint for the ryan plan, he is the chair of the house budget committee, would collapse the tax code from six individual tax brackets into

two. a 25% top rate as well as a 10% lower rate. it would also significantly cut taxes and reduce revenue that the government would be collecting over the next decade by about $4 trillion. it would increase defense spending compared to the president's budget and it would make changes to medicare, a plan that is causing a lot of debate within -- among democrats on capitol hill and around the country. so let's begin with congressman paul ryan as he outlined highlights of his budget at a news conference on capitol hill. >> this year, we're going to build on the important work that we did last year. we're going to take several new and improved strides. first, we propose that we repeal the president's disastrous health care law. it stops the law's mandates from trampling on our liberty. it stops its spending from threatening our fiscal health. and it stops this board of bureaucrats from threatening medicare. instead, we propose to save and

strengthen medicare by taking power away from government bureaucrats. we preserve the medicare guarantee for today's seniors so they can count on the benefit that they've organized their retirement around. and we preserve that guarantee going into the future for tomorrow's seniors by empowering them with choices, including a fee for service traditional option within a premium support system. we believe competition and choice should be the way forward versus price controls that lead to rationing. on the budget, we also propose to strengthen medicaid by empowering our states, by returning money to them so that they can design programs that are unique to their states to tailor this program to meet the needs of their populations. we also reform welfare. the 1996 welfare reform was very successful in getting toward an upward mobile society. in getting people off of dependsy and on to lives of self-sufficiency. unfortunately that was the only program among the means tested

entitlement programs that was reformed. we're proposing similar reforms to the states so that we can make sure that we're not creating a culture off dependeny in america but a culture of self-sufficiency. getting people back on their feet in the lives of upward mobility. we also propose as one of our hallmark issues to get to economic growth and job creation to reform the tax system. specifically we include in here a tax reform proposal provided to us by all the members of the ways and means committee. we propose to collapse the six different tax brackets into two rates. a 10% bracket and a 25% bracket for individuals. and a 25% bracket for corporations, which is at the international average and going to a territorial system. all those kinds of specs and details you can get on the website that shows the letter that we've been given by the ways and means committee. finally, i would say something about what's coming this next year. the sequester is coming. a lot of people in washington would like to simply ignore this. a lot of people in washington

would like to simply think that we can spend as we're going and ignore the fact that on january 2nd, the sequester kicks in. we don't think we should ignore this. so what we're doing in this budget this year is something we haven't done for six years. we're going to propose to go through a reconciliation process. now, you might be thinking, well, they used reconciliation a couple years ago. they distorted the reconciliation process to jam through a new partisan health care entitlement. we're going to bring reconciliation back to what it was meant to do, which is to get spending and deficits under control. we're instructing six authorizing committees to bring their spending cuts to the budget committee and then, therefore, to the floor by may so we can show how we would replace next year's sequester. we think that that is extremely important, to show the country exactly how we would prepare for these -- these eventualities. >> congressman paul ryan is the chair of the house budget committee. he is expecting that his plan,

if implemented, would reduce next yaer's deficit by nearly $798 billion. speaker of the house john boehner saying today that the republica republicans will support this measure in the house of representatives. joining us live from the white house is the principal deputy white house press secretary john ernest. as always, thanks for being with us. what is white house reaction to this plan? >> steve, quite frankly i think the white house here is disappointed. this is very similar if not exactly the same as what congressman ryan proposed last year. and what republicans vowed to back last year. at the end of the day, the consequences for the budget plan that the republicans rolled out are very significant. at the end of the day what we're looking at here is a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires on the order of about $150,000. and making draconian cuts in things like education, basic research, opportunities in new sources of energy and, yes, medicare and medicaid. you know, ultimately this plan would undermine the basic

promise of a secure guaranteed retirement for seniors. that's something that the president's not willing to budge on. now, the president actually advocates a more balanced approach. not one that just gives tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires and pays for it by making draconian cuts and balancing it on the backs of seniors but rather a balanced approach that asks the wealthy to pay their fair share but also implements the agreement that was reached with republicans last year to make significant cuts in the budget and would make important reforms to medicare and medicaid that ultimately would end up strengthening the program for the seniors who rely on it. so the president believes he's got a much more reasonable approach here and i think at the end of the day the american people agree with the president's view on this. >> let me read to you what congressman ryan issued in a statement earlier today. he made a couple of points. first of all, he says we reject the broken politics of the past. he also said that the president refuses -- these are his words -- to take responsibility for avoiding the debt fueled crisis before us. instead, his policies have put us on the path to debt and

decline. how do you respond to that? >> well, congressman ryan had an opportunity to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. simpson and bowles, the bipartisan commission appointed by the president to take a look at our tet and deficit problem advocated a very ambitious, far reaching approach, balanced approach that would reduce our deficit. this is something that -- that the congressman ryan did not support. and what we've seen from congressman ryan is an unbalanced approach. like i said, it would cut taxes for the wealthy. the folks at the top of the income scale would do very well under the approach that house republicans are laying out today. they would also extend subsidies for oil and gas companies that they currently enjoy on the order of about $4 billion a year. it would extend the tax benefits that are currently enjoyed by hedge fund managers, for example. what the president has advocated is similar to the approach that's been advocated by the whole range of bipartisan panels that have looked at deficit reduction. that is a balanced approach

that, yes, asks the wealthy to pay their fair share. to pay a little bit more. and also asks the government to tighten our belt. that's something that the president has laid out. it also asks for important reforms in the entitlement programs. that's something the president has also laid out. the president laid out his own plan that's different than simpson/bowles but achieves the same goal back in september where he laid out a specific plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over ten years. this would have the benefit of bringing our deficit under control. we would be in a place where we wouldn't have eliminated our testify sit. we wouldn't have eliminated the problem. we would have gotten it to a place where it's under control. the truth is the ryan budget doesn't do that. and it represents, once again, that republicans are looking for a plan and an excuse to just cut taxes for the wealthy and, you know, while that stands in stark contrast to the approach the president advocates which is much more balanced and which is much more true to the president's view that we should have an economy in this country where people can -- can still

live up to a basic american promise. that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home and put enough away for retirement. congressman ryan's plan, the republican plan in the house, doesn't do that. it makes things harder for those middle-class families that are already struggling to get by. >> we're talking with presidential spokesperson josh earnest. he's at the white house. let me ask you about the issue of medicare. dan pfeifer saying the same thing, the ryan plan would end medicare as we know it. as you well know when you look at the budget and look at entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid, social security, those are the big items. those are the things you need to tackle if you're going to bring down the debt and the deficit. what is the democratic plan, the president's plan, what needs to be done to deal with that? >> -- >> are you with us? >> i am now. i'm back. >> the specific question is how do you deal with the details of the medicare, medicaid program,

entitlement programs that need to be tackled if you're going to bring down the debt and deficit? >> what the president advocates, we're building on some of the reforms included in the affordable care act. this would include things like reducing overpayments to drug companies. it would use technology and science to improve the quality of care. at the end of the day, what it would do is it would protect medicare's basic commitment to america's seniors. the whole reason that medicare was -- was created was to make sure that america's seniors didn't go into poverty because they couldn't afford their health care costs. we believe -- we believe as americans, look, this shouldn't be a democratic or republican value here. we believe as americans that americans do have a right to secure retirement. that's what the whole essence of medicare's all about. and that's the promise that the house republican budget undermines. it essentially would segregate seniors into two different pools and eventually lead to a circumstance where the healthiest seniors would -- would allow -- would continue to have access to health care. but as they get sick, they would be dumped into the second pool

and be forced, most importantly here, be forced to incur a greater percentage of the their health care costs right at the time when they can least afford to do that which is when they're older and sicker. so the whole purpose of this plan, of the medicare plan as it was conceived, was to protect our seniors. and that's a promise that the house republican plan at its essence threatens. >> the president today making a joke about bipartisanship as he was welcomed on capitol hill by the speaker of the house, john boehner, for the irish prime minister. but on a more serious issue of trying to reach an agreement on one of the points that you have been making, which is tax increases on millionaires and billionaires, do you see any compromise on that beyond this election if the democrats and republicans were to agree to something like that? >> you would think there would be, steve. because i don't spend a whole lot of time looking at polls. but what the polls do say, generally speaking, is that the idea of confronting what is a

difficult and serious budget deficit challenge in this country, by asking seniors -- i'm sorry. by asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more in taxes, while at the same time we are -- the government's tightening our budgets and making some important cuts while reforming these entitlement programs, that the vast majority of the american public supports this kind of balanced approach. that's why this is the kind of approach that was conceived of by the rivlin do men chi commission. a bipartisan commission that was tasked with taking a look at this deficit problem. it's why this is generally the approach adopted by simpson and bowles and supported by democrats and republicans on that commission. it's why it sha-- it's why even gang of six in the senate generally speaking took a look at this and earned support from democrats and republicans by adopting this kind of balanced approach.

that's what the vast majority of the american public understands we need to do. which is we can't just afford to balance our budget on the backs of seniors and middle-class family. we just can't afford to do that. so the president's balanced approach is the kind of thing that should be able to garner a lot of bipartisan support. we should be able to find common ground on this. these are complicated issues. i'm not trying to paper over the differences here. this is the kind of thing that should be the subject of a robust debate. but we should not be having a debate about whether or not we should adopt a dahl lanbalanced approach. that's an entirely reasonable proposition. how you reach the balance should be the subject of the debate. the fact republicans are throwing balance out the window, willing to give tax cuts to the wealthiest and balancing the budget on the backs of seniors and the middle class is something we strongly disagree with and frankly isn't where the vast majority of the american publics believes we should be headed. >> josh earnest joining us from the white house. thanks for adding your perspective to this ongoing debate. appreciate your time on this tuesday. >> thanks for the opportunity, steve. have a good day.

this is "washington today" on c-span radio. jennifer ruben is going to be joining us in our next hour. she blogs right turn, the name of her blog, at washingtonpost.com. meanwhile on capitol hill, a fight over a small export credit agency is dividing congress. it's also holding up a popular bipartisan jobs bill. the issue is the export/import bank, which is a self-financing agency that helps to facilitate the sale of american goods outside the u.s. overseas. it does, however, need congressional reauthorization by the end of may. it is also close to hitting its $100 billion lending cap which is making it difficult for it to offer new loans and is now asking congress to raise its financing limit beyond $100 billion. so with those two issues now being debated, congress is arguing over the bank's future with some republicans floating a proposal that might end up abolishing the bank and senate democrats hoping to force its expansion and reauthorization by attaching it to the jobs legislation. so with that background, here's how the debate unfolded today on

this issue. we'll begin with senator rand paul, republican of kentucky. >> i rise today in opposition to corporate welfare. at a time when your country is borrowing over $1 trillion a year, i think it makes no sense to loan money back to countries we are borrowing from. for example, we've borrowed $29 billion from mexico. yet we're sending them back $8 billion of the money we borrowed from them to subsidize trade. a lot of the subsidized trade goes to very wealthy corporations. you know, when 12 million people are out of work in the united states, does it make sense for the u.s. taxpayer to subsidize loans of major multinational corporations? the president's big on saying, well, these rich companies need to pay their fair share. well, why then is the president sending loans out to these very

wealthy corporations, and he's actually giving them their fair share of our taxpayer money? why is that occurring? i've often asked the question, is government inherently stupid? well, you know, i don't think government's inherently stupid, but it's a debatable question. what government is, is government doesn't get the same signals that your local bank gets. your local bank has to look at your credit worthiness. your local bank has to make a profit. your local bank has to meet a payroll. once the government gets in charge of these things, bar the door. we doen't have a good track record with government banks because they don't feel deep inside the same pain that an individual banker fe eer feels gives a loan. we've got fannie mae and freddie mac losing $6 billion a quarter of your money. and what do they want to do? they want to expand another government bank.

so get this right. the fannie mae and freddie mac that are government banks are losing $6 billion a quarter. just recently they wanted to give them multimillion dollar bonuses. they said, well, you've got to pay people if you want to keep good talent. you know, my question is, is how much talent does it take to lose $6 billion a quarter? i think there are people here today watching the senate that would take $19 million a year to run one of these government banks to have your only record be that you lose $6 billion a quarter. that's outrageous. and they're wanting to expand a new government bank and give money to very wealthy corporations that are making a profit. it makes no sense whatsoever. >> senator rand paul made his comments on the senate floor earlier in the day. meanwhile, the senate democratic leader harry reid attacked the house republican leader eric cantor on this issue for his demand -- this is from the hill newspaper -- that the senate leaders drop an amendment that would reauthorize the

import/export bank and tie it into the jobs bill. congressman cantor was critical of the amendment that essentially would raise the lending limit of the export/import bank to $140 billion. keep it mind it's currently $100 billion. congressman cantor, the house republican leader, calling that a partisan distraction from the republicans' jobs bill. so the issue of the import/export bank in the senate getting tied up with the jobs bill. some votes earlier in the day on the senate floor. here is before the votes this afternoon, the senate democratic leader, harry reid. >> it's difficult to comprehend that the republicans want more -- republicans in the house want more fight. they haven't had enough. they're not willing to even take up a bill to do something about our highway system. 70,000 bridges are unsafe. 20% of our highways are in a

state of disrepair. and they haven't even taken up a bill. we've passed ours. the least they could do is take that up. millions of people depend on this highway bill that has passed the senate on a bipartisan basis. they depend on it for their jobs. but it seems to me that the house has come to the conclusion led by the house leadership that they can't do anything unless they get a permission sleep from the tea party. and on everything, the tea party wants a fight. they should change course. house leadership should change course and do the right thing for the country. with less than two weeks to go

before this bill would solve the problems of this country would be no longer efficacious. because at the end of the month the bill -- the legislation's now in -- that's running this country's transportation system goes out of business. millions of people will be put out of work. but this is the only issue that the republicans are manufacturing crisis out of thin air. now, according to the morning press, they want to fight over the xm bank. the xm bank has been in existence since the '30s. the last time this matter was brought before the senate was 2006. it was offered, a unanimous consent request was offered by a republican and passed by

unanimous consent. this bill we're trying to pass is one that would keep in place something that's so important. what we do to help businesses is minimal. xm bank is it. china does more than the united states, great britain, canada together. we could at least do this. but in the words of eric cantor, this is a partisan amendment. a partisan amendment? one of the main co-sponsors is richard shelby, former chair of the banking committee, another ranking member of the banking committee, not very partisan. it's supported by the chamber of commerce, national association of manufacturers, business round table, and various labor unions.

why? because it's jobs. >> senator harry reid speaking to reporters earlier in the day on the transportation bill and the export/import bank. there was a senate vote today. an amendment that would reauthorize and raise the lending cap on the export/import bank. that measure failed and so the debate continues on capitol hill. in fact, the debate is continuing on so many issues, many are wondering whether or not congress is broken. and, if so, how would you fix it? how would you improve the reputation of congress? how at an all-time low, according to the latest gallup poll. we asked many of you here on c-span radio and c-span television. by the way, you can way in throughout the week at 202-626-7962. again our listener feedback line is 202-626-7962. here's what some of you are now saying. >> term limits. term limits. that's all you have to do.

c it's ridiculous. term limits. >> i would say that there's certain preset milestones and if the congress does not meet those milestones in any given year, they're not eligible for re-election. not a one of them. it would light a fire and face what us common workers have to face. don't get your job done, you don't have it next time. >> from montana, i'd like to say my belief is that congress in its current function is corrupt. they have overspent on programs to fight people -- to fight most of the people that are involved in the government giveouts. they have no respect for the people that do work and pay taxes. i think we need to go to a representative system where we can each as individuals vote on

things that come before and are important to our country. and i think that that way the representatives that we elect would not say one thing when campaigning, then do another thing when they are elected. thank you. >> yes. thanks for the opportunity to respond. i'm calling from miami shores, florida. and i believe that what we need to do fundamentally is repeal the 17th amendment and allow senators to be elected by the state legislatures as it was in the past. and thereby make the senators be holden to the state legislatures and the state interests rather than being elected by masses of special interest fwrgroups, you know, seeking some type of payback. i think that would do a lot to shift the balance of power back to the states and realign our

country back towards the way it used to be and, of course, the balance of power. thank you for the opportunity to respond, and i'll take the comments offline. thanks. >> and we thank you for sharing your thoughts with our c-span listeners and viewers. our listener feedback line is 202-626-7962. tell us how you think you would improve, fix, repair, whatever word you want to use, the reputation of congress. what's your advice? again, 202-626-7962. relations between the president and the speaker of the house came up last night on "the david letterman show." michelle obama making her inaugural appearance on the cbs late night program. she was asked by david letterman about whether she could ever ditch the white house and run out to pick something up at 7/eleven. maybe a slurpy. she said i've threatened to do that. you've seen other people taking risks. she joked the security detail would take it and not deal with it very friendly if she, in

fact, tried to sneak out of the white house. but then was asked about the speaker of the house and the president and here's more from last night's letterman program with david letterman and the first lady. >> i have conversations with my wife. paul has conversations with his wife. >> yeah. >> married men and women have conversations all the time. >> we tend to talk. >> tend to talk. that are for no one else in the world but one another. >> that's right. but -- >> hoypothetically speaking, at the end of the day, has your husband ever come home and said to you, oh, that john boehner, what an idiot. >> it has never happened. never. never. he is always upbeat. particularly about congress. >> yeah. well, how can you not be upbeat?

>> that familiar laugh of david letterman with michelle obama making her first appearance on the late night program. cbs. it's available online at the david letterman website. and you're listening to "washington today" on c-span radio heard coast to coast on xm channel 119. in some other news today, on wall street the dow fell 68 closing at 13,170. nasdaq was down four. s&p also down four. congress's official tax analysts say that president obama's proposed buffett rule on taxes people earning over $1 million a year would yield $31 billion over the next 11 years. that would be a very small percentage of the federal budget deficits projected during that period which are expected to exceed $7 trillion. this figure of $31 billion comes from an estimate by the joint committee on taxation of a bill introduced last month by senator whitehouse. he's a rhode island democrat. he and others in his party intend to put that proposal, the buffett rule, into law. the president has proposed