what's on c-span radio on twitter. quick information about hearings, speeches and debates on capitol hill, the administration and the campaign trail including which events are live. and links to help you listen. go to twitter.com/cspan radio and click. >> at the end of the day, it's all about growth, it's about growing opportunities, it's about growing the economy, lifting the debt, restoring economic freedom, restoring the tax code that we can help our economy reach its full potential. >> last summer, our republican house colleagues were pleased to

be getting 66% of what they wanted. they made an agreement, they shook on it, and they passed it as law. now they're threatening to walk away from their agreement. >> and so the politicsn't co-s on one of the most important things congress has to deal with, spending your tax money. welcome to hour two. senator kent conrad, democrat of north dakota and before 245, paul ryan, who is a republican congressman from wisconsin, chair of the house and budget committee, it is an election year republican blueprint that would cut $5.3 trillion in spending over the next decade compared to the president's budget. it would also slash tax rates for house holds a enbusinesses and deal with an issue that's causing a lot of contention on capitol hill. that's the issue of medicare and medicaid. we'll have more on this story in

just a moment. it it's primary day. the rare chance to weigh in on the nomination process. turnout, relative light in the chicago area, which is more heavily democrat, but heavier in the republican strong holds. we'll have more on the speeches by mitt romney and rick santorum, the only two effectively campaigning and competing in the primary. 54 delegates are at stake. we expect top hear from senator rick santorum in gettysburg, pennsylvania. also mitt romney just outside of chicago. other news attorney john henry brown is saying there's no forensic evidence or no confessions. brown saying he will travel to afghanistan as part of his defense of staff sergeant robert bales.

in russia, the foreign minister saying his government is ready to support a new u.n. effort to force syrian president assad's regime to halt its bloody year-long crackdown against dissidents. the violence has killed more than 8,000 people. russia has frooefously blocked two u.n. resolutions critical of syria. the ryan budget plan was talked about all over the weekend. details coming in today. it's a budget blueprint that would essentially change the tax code. it would collapse it from six individual tax brackets to two. one at 25%, that would be the top tax rate and then 10% which would be the lower rate. it would also cut taxes significantly. it would reduce revenue to the government by about $4 billion trl over the next decade and it deals with entitlement programs dealing with medicare and medica medicaid. a quick rebuttal from democrats both on capitol hill and the white house. the white house communications

director saying that this plan would balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens. paul ryan was taking questions. >> just a few minutes ago, john morrison said this is deja vu all over again. we look at this concrete plan. most people aren't going to sit down and read this. >> come on, go to www.budget.gov and you can down load this yourself. >> most people are going to hear a 0-second ad and they're going to say oh, my gosh, they want to cut medicare. >> if we simply operate based on political fear, nothing is ever going to get done. if we allow entitlement politics fear that your avenue cares will

turn into a political weapon, america is going to have a debt crisis. i've got news. medicare under the president's law is going bankrupt. medicare under the president's law is flexion year turns medicare over to a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats whose job is to circumvent congress and put price controls on medicare which would lead to denied care for current seniors. medicare under the president's law raids $500 million from medicare to spend on his new health care proposal. we're saying get rid of the rationing board, stop the raid and preserve the system. don't change benefits for people in a near retirement because they've already retired or they're about to retire and they've organized their lives around this program. and we're saying,future, in ord this system, have a list of options they want to choose,

just like we as members of congress do for our health care choices. saving medicare this way, which has a rich tradition of bipartisan support for this kind of medicare reform is the most humane, common sense and bipartisan way to save this vital program. but let me turn it over to dr. plies, cho is an expert on this. >> the american people are martyr than the democrats give them credit for. they've removed $500 billion from the current program. they understand what the president's plan is through his law currently is to put into place the payment advisory board. 15 unelected bureaucrats who have the power without appeal to deny services for seniors. american people understand this. the work that was done between

last year and this year allows senior, will allow seniors the opportunity to stay on the current medicare program if that's what they desire or to voluntarily move to a different program. so the american people are brighter than democrats give them credit for. it is unlikely to get anywhere with the democrats in control of the u.s. senate. reaction from the other end of pennsylvania a knew with press secretary jay carney. >> some house democrats are finding some positive elms in the ryan plan, things they think are grounds for further talks. for instance, the example they gave was the elimination of the alternative minimum tax proposal because it hit so many middle class americans. is the president and the white

house believe that there are some positive elements in the plan today that are food for thought and talks down the road? >> the idea that tax reform is a good idea is one that's broad dishared by members of both parties and certainly this president. the problem is that when you present all the good things in tax reform like uh hey, i'm going to give you a tax break and hey, i'm going to eliminate the amt and then have no details on how you would pay for them and given your priorities that you have very robustly expressed in terms of not asking the wealthy to pay more, not asking corporations to give up their subsidies like the oil and gas corporations, not asking hedge fund managers to pay income tax at the rates that everybody else pay, then it's pretty evident who's going to get stuck with the bill. it's going to be middle class americans, it's going to be seniors on medicare, it's going

to be families with disabled children. you know, it's unfortunately the same, you know, list of those who would be baearing the burde that existed the last time we had a ryan budget proposal. and, you know, the fact that have, you know, people all agree that there should be tax reform doesn't mean that the specifics don't matter, because they matter a heck of a lot to every american out there who has to make echbnds meet. i think we've seen pretty clearly that what this proposal does not do is take the serious approach of getting our fiscal house in order that everyone says you have to take. you guys ask me a lot about the simpson bowls commission.

what's his view on it. shouldn't his proposal mirror that? and the fact is it does very much mirror the central tenants of simpson bowles. not a single house republican on that commission voted for it. chairman ryan did not support it. so i think that when we talk about what everyone agrees has to be the responsible approach to deficit reduction, we look at who would put forward different plans that embrace that balanced approach and then look at the republican proposal emerging from the house. you have to acknowledge the very grave differences between them. which i did today. >> jay carney responding to some of the details of the paul ryan bug plan. joining us live on the phone is jennifer ruben. it's titled right turn. thanks as always for being with us on c-span. >> my pleasure.

>> let's dig into some of the details of the ryan plan. where are the disparity? where are the differences between what ryan and the republicans are looking at and what the presidents have proposed. >> one of the starkest differences between the two budgets and frankly between this budget and ryan's budget last time. first of all, remember the budget control act last year put into place a mechanism that would enact automatic cuts unless this committee could come up with $1.2 trillion in debt reduction. they dependent do that. and the sequester ax would fall and would fall half on discretionary domestic spending and half on discretionary defense spending. what the ryan budget does is come up with a substitute set of cuts so that the defense side does not go forward. the rationale for that is several fold. first of all, secretary of defense panetta and others

thereby concerned about the extent of those cuts on our service people, on our ability to project american power to neat the president's only defense obligations and expectations. secondly, defense has sgichb at the well already. if you remember secretary of defense gates came up with $78 billion in cuts from the defense budget. and that is for the most part left alone. they didn't go back and troo i to put that money in. they're also accepting sensually for next year a flat budget on defense. and thereafter, the ryan budget would go up to about 2.5% of spending for defense increases. so i think if you look at it all storg, i think it's fair to say that the ryan budget puts back in about half of the defense spending that would have been cut by obama.

>> it would limit the discret n discretionary funding for the epa. you write about this corporate cronyism. explain. >> what republicans see now rather than sticking it to business, what happens is that there's this toxic relationship between big business and big government and we saw this. for example, in energy. a lot of green jobs fundings where money was given that weren't financial any, you know, able to hold on to their place in the market. and instead, it was essentially a give away to people who had

political connections to the white house. the premise is the government should not emesh itself and be in the position to be a piggy bank for business. it's to get the government out of the housing lending business. let that be prioritized, but the taxpayer would not be on the hook for it. if you go through the bill, somt of the areas you mentioned and others as well, the ideas that government should certainly regulate but government acts as an uber regulator, but it shouldn't be involved in, as the ryan budget puts it, picksing winners and losers and micromanaging the business affairs of the private sector. >> weefr talking with jennifer ruben who blogs for "the washington post." let me ask you about democratic reaction. this is a warmed over budget

plan is that paul ryan unveiled-year. in our last hour, we talked to the principal deputy white house press secretary who said this is a plan that would essentially hurt senior citizens and the white house and democrats will not go along with it. >> i don't think democrats will go along with it. i don't think paul ryan expects the senate to pass it. this is meant to be a sort of blueprint of what the republicans would do if they could govern, if they had the white house or the senate. the medicare reform plan now includes a bubble option, if you will.

the defense spending, 340es sides didn't directly address the level of defense spending. there are some new aspects of this. although many things are similar to last time. there will certainly be a long and detailed fight about medicare. the point that ryan makes is the cuts and limitations on medicare spending will be for upper income people that they preserve the safety net. they preserve medicare for the indigent and for the modest income people, but that at some point, the programs are unsustainable if we allow fee for service medicine for everybody of every economic level. so there are differences there and ryan has a premium support

plan that a democrat ron white joins in proposing. >> this debt ceiling deal, in just a moment, we're going to let our audience member kent conrad explain. kind of set this up, what was the deal last year? and does the ryan plan violate that? >> the deal last time was that through 24 arrangement, including the sequestration that they would in essence set funding levels to get the president through the election to be blunt about it. ryan and the republicans on the house side make two arguments. first of all, there's just a legal obligation to pass a budget. we have federal budget rules and there's deadlines, which are routinely ignored, but they have a legal obligation to do so so. secondly, there's nothing in that bca in the budget control act that says you couldn't do better than that.

you couldn't get more reduction. and certainly, for example, the president has put out a corporate tax reform plan that raises revenues. is that in violation of the budget control act? so i think what the republicans are saying is at the end of the day, they will adhere to that deal. and paul ryan has said that privately. i would imagine he would say that publicly. they don't intend to play the shutdown game or the, you know, go up against the debt limits that they will ultimately make sure that the government is funded. but this is their example of how we could do better and what we would do if republicans and moderate conservative democrats had a governing majority. >> you've written pieces on a lot of different issues. >> i have, i have. >> jennifer ruben, thank y rubir

being with us. here's more from senator conrad who responded to congressman ryan's plan today, the issue of the debt ceiling deal agreed upon last year. >> a budget was enacted for last year and this or this year and next, i should say, in the budget control act of last year. last week, we received cbos updated budget estimates, which allowed me to complete work on the budget deeming resolution for 2013. the filing of this deeming resolution was required under the budget control act. i filed a similar resolution for 2012 back in september.

again, here is the language taken directly from the law. it states -- not later than april 15, the chairman of the committee on budget should fall for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in this act. it says at a level consistent with the level set forth in the act. and let's remember what these limits mean. you should the budget control act, spending caps that are put in place in the law, discreti discretionary spending is cut by $900 billion below the cbo

baseline over the next ten years. and that's not including the sequester cuts. that's just the result of the budget control act spending limits. our house republican friends seem to be walking away from these levels even though they agreed to them just zen months ago. >> what the budget control act has done is it has brought our two parties together. so i would just like to reflect for a moment that we have a bipartisan compromise here. that doesn't happen all that often around here so i think that's worth noting. that's a good thing. and what are we doing? we are actually cutting spending while we do this. that's cultural. that's a big step in the right

direction. we are getting 2/3 of the cuts we wanted in our budget. and as far as i'm concerned, 66% in the right direction is a whole lot better than going in the wrong direction. >> senator kent conrad, democrat from north dakota as he spoke to reporters on capitol hill. reaction to what senator conrad was saying, paul ryan was asked about whether or not his budget plan breaks that agreement, breaks that deal from last year. here's more from capitol hill. >> one thing we all know american are very tired of is government shutdown fights. what do you say to democrats who say budget levels, spending levels were already agreed to with a debt deal over the summer and with this budget you're picking another government shutdown fight? >> i wouldn't say that at all. we have to prepare that discretionary spending goes down to 950.

we shouldn't go down the path that after october, november, december, then bam a sequester hits in, we need to prepare for that. we're actually going to reconcile six committees, we're going to make six committees go out to show how we replace the sequester. we want to not ignore the law as if nothing is going to happen in january. >> back and forth, it continues. the debate over paul ryan budget plan. democrats call the budget plan dead on arrival as jennifer rubin pointed out on her blog. it does create a defining line between the two parties in this election year. >> well, it is an election year. will congress get anything done or can congress work together

beyond 2012 when we have a new congress and either a new president, a republican president or the reelection of barack obama? we're asking you whether or not you think you can reform congress or change congress. how would you improve the reputation of congress? our listener feedback line is 202-626-79623. >>. >> caller: hi. i'm sure most people are going to say it should be something like reducing term limits, but i would say that the best way to change congress for the better is to simply remove the lobby. i think that has undue influence on the congress. they have more say than the average american does. thank you for taking my call. bye. >> caller: i'm calling from florida. for many, many years, the

presidential administration. number one integrity, accountability. and ethical values is not within our government. it's money, money, money. >> caller: i'm calling from germantown, maryland. i would like them to consider a law getting bills passed regardless of whether they're republican or democrat. the idea is your pay could be increased. just a though. >> caller: i'm calling with

fairfax, virginia. and i'm half wondering if we need to move to a democratic congress or an all-republican congress and let them show us what they can do. the leadership of the congress, really harming the american people. >> your reaction to our question, how to improve the reputation of congress. 202-626-7962. well, the hill newspaper report on a developing story this afternoon in the u.s. senate on this very issue. the senate shot down an amendment to reauthorize the u.s. export/import bank today which handed a setback to boeing in its lobbying battle against one of its own customers, delta airlines. the export import reauthorization put forth as an amendment to the jobs bill did

pass by the house but was rejected by a vote of 55-44. mitch mcconnell urging republicans to oppose clotuwtur saying it would stall the overall jobs packet. coming just one day after eric cantor, critical of senate democrats for trying to add this amendment to the house passed jobs bill, aring that the issue should be dealt with separately, not collectively. senate democratic leader harry reid saying the time was short and there was too much to wait on reauthorizing the bank president export/import bank charter does expire by may 31. this issue will more than likely come back again. but he hears more from the senate floor as it unfolded earlier in the day. >> i think that this is a huge mistake to my republican colleagues. xm is for the foreseeable future

not going to be able to move forward. i can't move it to the front of everything else. i have only talked about a few of the things that we have to do. and we have to do them very, very soon. so go ahead, my friends. you picked a fight where there's not a necessary fight, but you may be surprised how this winds up. and so say no mr more. i know what the rules are of the senate and i'm going to follow them. so have it. >> madam president? >> this jobs bill that passed overwhelmingly in the house with only 23 vote against it that's supported by the president of the united states is ready to go down to him for signature. if we add the xm bank to it, we only delay the passage of this bipartisan jobs bill and we send it back to the house and we don't know how they feel about the xm extension. we do know here in the senate, as i just indicated, there is a significant majority in favor of

passing this legislation, which we ought to be able to do very quickly. i would say on those from this side i'm in favor of moving to that rapidly. i can say to the majority leader as i said before, we would be willing to agree to very few amendments related to the subject matter and i would encourage him to turn to that soon even though it doesn't expire until sometime in may. with that, i yield to the floor. >> madam president, vote on a bill you favor. the only way to assure this program, xm bank advances is to see that it's attached to the house measure. clearly that's it. and i am very, very tired of this bill, being preferred to as a jobs bill.