tv [untitled] March 23, 2012 6:30pm-7:00pm EDT
6:30 pm
this congressman, how many years has he served or is he with the tea party? number two. my second question. we have passed a budget last year. senates have passed a budget. everything's been passed. but we have a party in the congress that is a party of no. their main goal is to destroy this president. they cannot back this president. and then they're worried about the one percenters. instead of giving them the tax -- they need to pay their fair share. i have a candidate running for president and he only pays 15%? and you take -- you just take
6:31 pm
people that are normal paid $10, $12 an hour, $15 per hour, they are paying 30%, at least 30%. now, i know he is republican and he wants to destroy our country -- >> let's get a response from the congressman. >> that's a little dramatic. i don't think anybody, democrat or republican, wants to destroy the country, honestly i think they want to try and make it better. they have competing ideas about how to do that. in terms of my time in congress, i was elected in 2002, began serving in january of 2003. i'm not a member of any party other than the republican party, although i certainly appreciate what the tea party's done. i think it's energized the debate, got us focused on issues. it was clearly an intergal part of the republicans taking the house in 2010. i think it will be an important component going forward in 2012. in terms of we passed a budget,
6:32 pm
i'm going to disagree. we didn't pass a budget last year. the house of representatives, the republicans, passed a budget. the president submitted a budget and that budget got zero votes in the democratic senate. not a -- it failed 97-0. even the democrats wouldn't vote for the president's budget. the ryan budget not only passed the house but got 42 votes in the senate. it's actually the only viable option out there that's a real budget. we'll pass a budget again next week. i hope our democratic friends who didn't submit one for even consideration last year will do that. this next week. i think they will. i think that's a good thing and we'll have a clear contrast between where the two parties want to go. so i hope that answered your question. >> jim asks on twitter, whose budget proposal goes farther toward balancing the budget and paying down the debt? congressman paul ryan's or congressman ron paul's proposals? >> ron paul's. it's quicker, faster, pretty dramatic. both of them eventually balance. which the president's budget has
6:33 pm
submitted earlier never does. literally you can run the numbers out forever. but, you know, a budget is a as operational document, if you will. it's also got to have the votes behind it. the good thing about the ryan budget is it not only is a set of ideas, it demonstrates you can attract, at least last year, something like 238 votes in the house of representatives. and almost make it in the senate, or at least get 42 votes in the united states senate. so it's a real document. and i'll probably end up voting for a budget that's more conservative than the ryan budget. the republican study committee usually submits a budget. i always vote for that budget. it never passes. and i think it's good that it's out there. it helps shape the debate, helps drive what's happening. there will be a variety -- usually a variety of democratic budgets as well. usually the whack caucus submits one, the progressive caucus quite often submits one. those things are good but end of the day you've got to push something that actually has a chance to pass.
6:34 pm
i think the ryan budget has a chance to got only pass the house but shape the debate in the presidential campaign and ultimately become a blueprint that we can begin to achieve balance with. >> congressman tom cole serving his fifth term action representing the fourth district of oklahoma which includes norman and other communities. he serves as the deputy whip for the republican conference and is a member of the republican steering committee. candidate mitt romney went to capitol hill head, the headline of the new york types says he was looking for allies. he did get some support from senator jim demint. not a flat-out endorsement but jim demint seems enthusiastic about what mitt romney has to offer. what do you think? >> i think that was a big thing. senator jim demint endorsed mitt romney in 2008 when he was running for president. but he's emerged in the last four years as obviously a very significant national leader, closely associated with the tea party movement. so i think the fact that he's speaking favorably, we're seeing other republican dozen that,
6:35 pm
suggests that the republican party is beginning to come together. doesn't mean the primary process is over, it's not. i think the process, in my view, has been helpful and has sharpened some of the candidates' skills. we'll see what happens the next few weeks. rick santorum's still viable, newt gingrich is still viable, ron paul has a devoted following and he's staying in. clearly romney at least right now has the upper hand. >> are you supporting him? >> i've not endorsed anybody. i actually told somebody, why would you want somebody from washington, d.c.'s endorsement this election cycle? look, i think actually the great thing about presidential races is the average american really gets to know the candidates very well. they're covered, they're on the news, they're in the media, they're advertising, you tend to know more about the people running for president than the people running for state representative. so i don't think americans pay a lot of attention to political
6:36 pm
endorsements nor should they, they can make the judgment for themselves. i'm pretty content with the feel i have and feel comfortable supporting whoever emerges as the nominee. >> jane is a democrat in colorado springs, good morning. >> caller: good morning. this is my first time calling in as a democrat. i've been a republican for a long time. the tea party element of the republican party has driven me away. i'm an accountant by trade. and we do need to have revenues. we can't do it without revenues. and as long as we have a congress controlled by republicans we'll never get a fair tax system in this country. the tea party, it was really a coke runner construct. obama care along with the death panels and all that other stuff that came up was really a coke brothers construct. obama care is important to a lot of people. but they had to have something they could get people all worked up about.
6:37 pm
sarah palin helped that out. so i have to say that, you know, i'm very sorry that, you know, that the republican party has gone the way that it has. the religious right and all of that. i just can't go along with it. >> when was the last time you voted republican? >> pardon me? >> when was the last time you voted republican? >> caller: it was -- i voted for obama the last time because i couldn't vote for anybody who would put sarah palin on the ticket. with all good conscience, i couldn't vote for them. >> let's get a response from our guest. >> thanks for taking the time to call in. in terms of your concern about the tea party being a coke brother construct, that's simply not the case. look, i've run political campaigns. this was a legitimate grassroots revolt, a populist conservative revolt against the president. when this started in 2009, nobody thought the republican party would be taking the majority of the house of representatives any time soon. as a matter of fact, you go back
6:38 pm
and read the sort of analysts at the time and the view was the republican party was going to be a permanent majority. what a difference one election's made. nobody says that today and we're likely to hold on to the house, whatever happens presidentially, a good shot at taking the senate. to dismiss this as some artificial construct as opposed to genuine opposition to what i think was massive government overreach is a mistake. and it's -- whether you're for it, sympathetic or not, fair enough. but i would just tell you politically that's not the calculus, it's a real movement. and there is vast concern in the country about the overreach. the sheer size of the federal government, what it's going to do. in terms of the tax question, i'll disagree with you again. if you want taxes to go up, just re-elect the president. it will happen. all the bush tax cuts run out. as a matter of fact the interesting thing is that the president is basically accepted 80% of the bush tax cuts for 95% of the american public.
6:39 pm
he said he's not going to -- if you pay income taxes you got a tax cut when president bush was in office. the democrats have largely preserved that system. the president could have ended all the tax cuts two years ago. they all ran out in december of 2010. he had the option at that point, there's no way the republicans even with control of the house could have overridden a veto. he chose not to do that. i think he chose wisely because i think the country was still in a down turn, he didn't want to raise taxes then. it also wasn't exactly a politically courageous choice. if you believe in higher taxes the president could have done that. and so far, you know, while he's been quick to propose revenue increases, it's been pretty narrow, it's never been broad based, it's never been of sufficient magnitude to deal with the correct crisis. he's never coupled it with real spend organize entitlement reform that would get us to balance. there's other ways to do that. we ought to be having debate about that. so far sadly the president of the united states has been
6:40 pm
absent from that debate. it's that lack of leadership and that failure to address fundamental problems that i think probably led to the republican party's remarkable rebirth and recovery after the '08 election. >> there is an editorial piece in "the washington post" today in the washington forum section written by four former senators. william brock, jack danforth, trent lott, don nichols. they talk about the bond they see as having taken place in the past between moderates and conservatives. they write, perhaps the optimism of where republicans were headed rose too quickly for false divisions based on labels more than facts began to be raised. moderate became an epithet to be hurled at opponents said to be something less than true republicans. they go on to say, in our day it was common for conservative republicans to campaign for moderate colleagues and vice versa. the goal was control of the senate, not absolute ideological conformity because the ultimate purpose was to keep congress true to america's core values.
6:41 pm
and that result required a majority. what's your response to this? how do you think coalitions are succeeding or failing between moderate and conservative republicans? >> first of all, i'd just remind people, i know all four of these guys, i served with all of them, other than senator brock. i knew him as far back as when he was chairman of the republican party in the late '70s. look, we have a majority. you know, we actually got the largest republican majority since 1947 exists right now in the house of representatives. we picked up six seats in the united states senate. if all of those seats had been on the line, not 45, but all 100 the last election cycle, 34, whatever the number was, we probably would have gotten the united states senate too. so politics is by nature a contentious business. i'm not very sympathetic to this idea that we live in a uniquely contentious time. i always like to remind people, i'm old enough, i grew up in the 1960s, sadly saw a president assassinated, his brother assassinated running for
6:42 pm
president, the greatest civil rights leader of american history assassinated, riots in the street, richard nixon's presidency broken, him run out of office just ahead of impeachment. don't tell me somehow politics is more difficult today than it was then. the country got through that period of time. we had great years in the '80s and '90s. we'll work through this period of time too. again, when people tell me it's a tough business, i look around the world. i've been involved in a lot of the elections. i've never had to worry about disappearing in the middle of the night because the wrong guy won on the other side. my family's never been threatened. never risked my property. american politics is remarkably civil. when you consider -- we had a presidential election in 2000 where the guy that got the fewest votes won under the system we have, went to the supreme court, 36 days we didn't know who the next president of the united states was, were there tanks on the street or soldiers being mobilized? no, people were joking about
6:43 pm
hanging chads and the greatest country in the world changed power peacefully and orderly, six years later the guy who lost the election shows up at the guy who won the election's house to be honored with the nobel prize. it's a pretty amazing place, pretty amazing system. we're not in unique crisis, we're just going through a contentious time. the country has had difficult years but the system is strong and it will work out. >> congressman tom cole is a member of the appropriations and budget committees. we're looking at the paul ryan budget plan and getting our guest's take out. bill, republican in troy, new york. good morning. hi, bill, you're on the program. >> caller: okay, hi, there. you know, this is something. i've been trying to get on your program since the first gulf war. and i haven't had any damn luck at all. >> we're so glad you finally got through. >> caller: yeah, yeah, i'm amazed. the thing i'm interested in, congressman, i know you're all
6:44 pm
up there trying to do a job, all parties involved. but you guys have a retirement plan that even if you serve one term, you get your full salary -- >> actually, that's not the case. you never get your full salary. we have the same retirement plan essentially all federal workers do. so nobody retires at full salary. so as a matter of fact, it would take you 20-odd years to get to 80% of your salary, which is the cap. so again, it's pretty much the same retirement system that everybody else has. and you don't vest in it i think for five, six years, something like that. at any level at all. >> does that make you feel better, though? >> caller: then they should take that off of the internet. because in the internet, in one of the -- like where it talks about what congressmen and senators get, it's a united states website. it says that you get free medical and your salary as retirement. so maybe they should take that off.
6:45 pm
>> let me quickly respond to that, because i hear this at town hall meetings and there are things on the internet that are not true. there is official website -- i don't know where you got your information. it's not a government website. maybe something that looks official or is meant to look official but it's not. if you type in congressional retirement, there's plenty of websites that will pop up automatically. you can go to it, figure out what it is. it's simply not as you've been informed. so i'm glad you raised the question. >> neil, independent caller in cleveland, ohio. welcome. >> good morning. representative cole, i'm a little nervous, i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> me too. >> caller: my question to you is about the disability benefits. now, you know, you say you want to cut disability benefits. let me give you my example. and this is honest to god it's what's going on with me. okay, i'm 53 years old. i've been a diabetic for 35 years.
6:46 pm
you know, they took money out of my paychecks for 28 years. and like i say, i'm 53. now, i've been disabled for the last eight years. they have amputated my thumb because of diabetes. they amputated my thumb off my right hand. they've amputated my right leg below my knee. they've amputated four toes off my left foot. and i am legally blind. i basically see a little bit out of my right eye. now, next year, in 2013, am i going to be homeless and put on the street because i'm not 55 years old? >> no, actually. nobody's talked about cutting disability. as a matter of fact, i think this last week, sam johnson, representative from texas, chairman of the ways and means subcommittee on social security, was holding hearings on how do you speed up and make the disability portion of social security, which is what i suspect you're receiving right now, work better, so people don't take years to fight these
6:47 pm
cases. i don't know a congressional office in america, be it republican or democrat, that doesn't spend a lot of time working with constituents that they represent trying to cut through this maze. we've got a -- basically a judge-based system that takes a long time for people that legitimately earn their benefits. nobody's talked about that, there's nothing in the ryan budget on social security. i do think we need to reform it. but it's more at the retirement end of it, not the disability end of it. it's a pretty important component in insuring people that run into the kind of situations that you're talking about, that you have to deal with, to have a means of support. it's not just a retirement system, it is indeed a social insurance system as well. hopefully you're getting the kind of service you need. if not call your local senators. i'm sure -- they have professional people that work these kind of cases. it's nonpartisan. they're happy to help you. so i would hope, if you have a
6:48 pm
problem, get into it. i wouldn't worry about your benefits being cut because i don't know of any proposal on the hill at this point that actually would cut disability, the disability benefits associated with social security. >> on twitter, how can the house gop budget by congressman ryan be a republican-based bill when it says tax code loopholes will be closed but none are specified? >> that's what the budget committee does. it lays out the broad goals. i serve on that committee on budget. what you want is real legislation enacted by the ways and means committee. that's where tax legislation is done. and you're going to start seeing some of that. they're going to actually produce some of this in the course of april. we'll vote on some of it at least to deal with the seques r sequester. again, i suspect that committee will continue to work through and try to do those type of thins. one person's loophole is another person's incentive or what have you. these are always contentious.
6:49 pm
they're easier to talk about in abstract. the way you do it is work through committees. the budget sets the overall goals, these are what we're going to do, then the committees write the legislation. >> there's the paul ryan budget plan at a glance from the "wall street journal." $5.3 trillion savings in federal spending over 10 years in the proposed budget compared with the president's budget. ryan budget would raise $2 trillion less in taxes and reduce the deficit by $3.3 trillion more. proposes a 10% cut to the federal workforce over three years through attrition. proposed top tax rate would be 25% for both companies and individuals down from the current top rate of 35%. individuals would have just two tax brackets at 10% and 15%. >> 10 and 25. >> 10 and 25%, sorry. my misread. 10% and 25%. favorite parts of this budget plan? >> oh, i do. like every budget, discuss this things. if i had the right to be king of the world i would write a few
6:50 pm
things differently but i think it's really a remarkable document. it's also a brave document. paul's doing what nobody else has been willing to do and that has actually put ideas down and run on them and persuade our conference to do the same thing. that's what elections are supposed to be about. >> two other elements of this propose 2013 spending level would be 1.28 trillion. and that's the level reached in august and $810 billion, that's the amount by would trim growth in medicare spending over a decade. it would provide health insurance to the poor into a blocked grant to states. let's go to mobile, alabama. ity in ri, independent line. >> good morning, ma'am. >> good morning. how are you? >> okay. sir, i want to ask you about a very, very important question. >> yes, sir. >> okay. i want to know about the
6:51 pm
keystone pipeline and what i mean by it, sir, why won't the united states congress say we're going to have every drop here because, sir, without that you'd be contained and the people that have secured, the people that running for the refinery, those are jobs and you make us energy independent, sir. so -- and you let the middle east know that america is getting their stuff together and we can deal with that, so why are you all letting the president dictate you all? >> sadly, we control the house of representatives and we don't control the senate and the president does have a veto, and he has the -- just because we want something -- we voted on the keystone repeatedly. there's also a permitting
6:52 pm
process that's an executive branch function that the president control, but i think you make the case very well. you know, actually the president was in my home state in the district right next to mine in cushing, oklahoma, which we have the keystone being built from oklahoma down to louisiana and what we really need is the northern end of it which reaches up into canada. a lot of them are not unique. believe me, we have a lot of them in oklahoma and they've been exporting gas to the rest of the country and beyond for over 100 years. we don't think this is an unusual technology or unusual thing to do. we need to get about doing it so i couldn't agree more. sadly, the president has chosen not to expedite this, but to wait until after the election on the northern end, and it's costing us jobs and it's costing us time and it's sending the wrong message. as you suggest to the people around the world that we're not serious about producing all of the energy we can for ourselves.
6:53 pm
>> republican line, roy in boulder, colorado. good morning. >> good morning, c-span. representative cole, thank you very much for exposing yourself to the public. >> only rhetorically. >> yes. true. i really dislike defeat and the former republican that called in earlier is a low-level political operative out of colorado springs and she's one of the ladies that called and she does that often. as a former republican, it's irritating. my question is is there any chance ever of us having a tax program that is equitable so that everyone pays and it is absurd that the poor as we hear
6:54 pm
so often pay no taxes, receive all the benefit, and i mean all the benefits right down to their cell phones if they're clever. they pay nothing. >> in response, yes, there is a chance to do that. there are a variety of proposals and i'm personally sort of a flat tax proponent myself and the fair tax. believe me, that's essentially a consumption-based tax that would eliminate the consumption tax on everything and there are benefits and there are ways to get the money back to people that are very low income and nobody would escape taxes under them. i would suggest that a lot of the public doesn't pay income taxes and most everybody pays payroll taxes and most people pay taxes in some way, shape or form to the state government and usually sales taxes and a gallon of gasoline, believe me, you're paying federal taxes and no
6:55 pm
question the current system we have isn't fair, doesn't work well and has too many exemptions and ought to be more broadly based with a lower top rate and that's what we're trying to do and that's what the budget proposes. >> it's not fair, but has a different opinion. the republican budget hurts the middle class and the poor and it's designed for the wealthy. it cuts programs in education, health and does not meet the needs of american citizens. >> first of all, with we say we cut programs and what we usually do is eliminate the growth if programs or slow things down. it's not like we're going to be spending less money next year than we're spending this year, but we're running a $1.3 trillion deficit and we are spending a larger percentage of the total wealth of the country than we spent during contests like the second world war, the great war for survival. at some point you go beyond what
6:56 pm
you can afford. i think what hurts them is the tax system that is complex, the upper incomes in the brackets and the twitterers are exactly right about that, but the republican plan removes those and basically says no more deductions and it's upper income people that use most of the deductions and what we need is a flatter, fairer system that expedites growth and distributes investment and income across the board and i would argue we need a smaller public sector and not a larger one. >> let's go to illinois. sue in the democrats line. >> good morning. >> i guess my question is you're a member of the appropriations and budget committee. i'm wondering why you don't budget the committee or your committee doesn't do more about that and the trillions of dollars in debt and you fail to
6:57 pm
tell the american people that we spend every 265 days as the country, why not get all of the oil companies together and say the national security, why don't you lower your gas to $1.99 for a year just so we can get on our feet as a country. do you have any oil stocks at all and how many republicans have oil stocks? okay. and i don't know how many republicans have oil stocks, if you want to know what i have go right online. i do go an oil stock in one company so if you own mutual funds which is mostly what i have is located i guess you own stock in multiple companies indirectly. in terms of getting the ceos together, the reality is oil is a global commodity and the biggest problem we have is a lot
6:58 pm
of production is controlled outside the united states by companies that effectively set the global price. the more oil that's on the market the better off we are and the more the price comes down. americans don't like to hear this particularly in a time of increasing gasoline prices, but we still have in the industrial world the cheapest gasoline prices in the world. much cheaper than france or england and england is self-sufficient in oil. so those companies actually bring us the product more cheaply than almost anybody else in the world except the huge exporters of oil in the middle east provide for their own people. we would suggest that -- and they also, by the way, pay an enormous amount in taxes and that's okay, but like any other corporation, when they tax it they simply add it to the price of the product and they go on. i'm amazed at the president's call to get rid of oil tax breaks and we don't have tax breaks that aren't available to
6:59 pm
the other industries and their profitability is lower than apple or microsoft or most of the high-tech companies and their investment requirements are much higher and at the end of the day when you raise the cost to production, you're simply raising the cost of the product at the pump. so i think this administration has not been particularly helpful to fossil-based fuel. if you ought to look at the natural gas portion of this, it was a quarter of what it cost three or four years ago and there was exploration and discovery in so-called shale gas boom and again, we find it, we produce it. we live with it and we love the men and women that do it and we export it to the rest of the country. i would hope they do it in other states as well. >> here's a washington post story. the stock act clears the senate and advances to the white house. the senate on thursday approved legislation banning lawmakers and al
96 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on