people who sit at the wrong -- and the people who buy houses, and get people out of the homes. they are sick in the head. that is a mental disease we have. we never learn from our experience. that is the only thing you can -- the way some of the committees argue. i was told our c-span turkeys in 1979 in 90 80, i had to call today. you do not understand the sickly is a civilized way of seeing who are our neighbors. capitals and work all the time. i think economics one. time i used to go to wall street. years ago. not as an investor. but as a -- who can read both tween the lies they word of the coulee. the modern term for something else.

it's sad. i hope we do not have a strike, but labor cannot be ignored. that is part of it. the land god gave, labor -- practice. >> that is drawn in ohio. our last color in this first segment. >> a focus on federal spending, now, with jonathan hit a, lot of the wall street institute. he is a program director. there they government program. previously helped found a coalition to reduce spending. and recently panda this piece for the national review. get ready for a big spending lame duck. jonathan, what are we likely to be spending big on in this upcoming lame duck? >> what are we likely to be sending back on is the better question. look, it has become this annual process where congress does not finish having their appropriations bills done on time. and so we tend to have an omnibus piece of legislation, that rolls them altogether

during the lame duck. that is what everyone is expecting this time around. obviously. congress basically approve funding for the government through december 16th, so there is a need to either pass it resolution, that will extend into the new congress, or try to go and how some sort of omnibus piece of legislation, and they're all sorts of other things that we have not finished the authorization act, for. example there is a lot of work being done in the defense budget for the coming year. a lot of lobbying for both a special interest outside washington but also just from the pentagon itself. having an increase in their fund saying and then they're all sorts of other priorities, the electoral county act reforms. the same sex marriage bill yesterday. there are a lot of things that congress has been putting off that now they are climbing into this quickly shortening luta period. >> in terms of it all, notice what's the price tag we talking about here if that does come together? >> that is a big wildcard. i don't know if anyone knows at this point. obviously it is from the entire

government. typically, speaking there will be some significant increase. evil other government departments they're obviously inflationary environments. they are basically lobbying for increases in their budgets, perhaps even bigger than usual. i think it will likely be large. they can't get a deal, the president can't get a deal, then the top is that he will potentially support continuing resolution through the entire year, which is something that has not typically been done. that is where you are getting some pushback from. >> pushback is the department saying we cannot respond to priorities that come up if we are working on the budget was approved last night. the department heads of different agencies make the same argument and resolutions tie their hands. what's their view of a continuing resolution? >> i think it is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. i think that first of all, there is a lot of funding is available to multiyear's, and many ago larger programs with the doj in particular is not

reliant on the funding they get on a annual basis. they have pools of money. frankly the g.a.o. did about a year and a half ago. that looked at, does d.o.d. suffer under continuing resolutions. and they found no examples of any programs at the d.o.d. that actually were put on the backburner, because of the fact they were not getting funding. the reality is we have continued resolutions pretty much every year. it's not like this is some sort of new processes that they are unable to plan for. i think when you combine evidence from the g.a.o., this becomes irregular. currents it makes me think this is not a legitimate. concern >> this time after congress was elected but before they are, seated the lame duck, usually time for big. spending as usual this would be a big spending lame duck? >> no. this will become the. norm we passed the 20th amendment in the 1930s as a way of cutting down on the lame duck period. as you recall, the constitution

says an inauguration day things march 4th. we basically took two minutes of that, with the liberal people traveling to california, i. guess and old forms of transportation. the goal, the, was to reduce the lame duck period. for this exact reason there's a little bit less accountability because you just have the election, a lot happens into. years voters forget what may have happened in a lame duck. it has become this time where perhaps on the potentially good and, you can do things that might otherwise not be in the political will to. do things like the eca reform, the dimension. the other problem is that you have a lot of these big spending priorities, where basically everyone can go and get their hands in the cookie jar. and increase spending the way that they otherwise might not be able to. >> when i chamber of congress changes hands, what is the incentive for the party this coming into power to agree big spending in a lame duck? >> right, now obviously,

democrats have the majority. and are losing the. house from there and it is quite obvious. they want to get all these priorities. and that is what you are hearing, i think, a lot of messaging on the republican side. they're still sorting things that republicans do want to see funded. doj budget is about a good example of. that there are these kinds of priorities. and then there are other things where i think there's a diversity of opinion within the republican party, and again the electoral count act. which is not necessarily in the spending bill, but it's something that the people on the publican side of the aisle want to go and see that reform be passed. this is an enticing time to take up a reform like that. i think the same thing goes on the spending front there are certain things, always priorities, that both parties want. and frankly, when you look at their spending records and what they vote for there is a lot more bipartisanship than you might think. the reality is that both parties have to pass pretty much anything these days you generally have to have some sort of bipartisanship. especially when congress is so

close in. margins so there's a lot more agreement that sometimes we are lucky. >> guest government program director at the r street incident. here to take our, call talking about congressional spending in these upcoming fiscal deadlines, phone lines are as usual. democrats, 2027. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. i spoke to calling in the next money with the russia incident, is whether program does. >> we are a think tank. our support our slogan is supporting free. markets we try to present a limited -- and real solutions to some of the policy problems. the government's, program in particular, -- we try to make congress a better oversight on the executive branch. they look better in. generally have a lot of work with the modernization committee, trying to bring congress into the new century, if you will. basically just trying to make the government work better that

we'll get better policy. >> what is spending tracker dot org? >> spending tracker is a sight that basically takes official government estimates from the congressional budget office and cross references those estimates with the voting records of members of congress. you can go on that size and pull up your member and see exactly what they voted for and what the fiscal implications of that legislation are. it is a really great resource and a lot of times you have members from both parties that say one thing in perhaps do something different with their boats. this is the ability to go and prepare members and see whether or not their actions on fiscal bills, how they actually compare to the reality. >> in terms of tracking, spending a headline from the new york times today says the u.s. by just $53 million to kyiv for their electrical grids. how much are we have to at this point? ? we >> it's a. lot this is a thorough package,

assuming something happens during the lame. doc a believe resident biden's -- >> a major. elated the thing is obviously to your, point your question from, earlier about where there is agreement. there obviously a lot of republicans, mitch mcconnell being at the top of that list, who want to see increased funding for ukraine. and addition to president biden. i think there is some concern on the democratic side of the aisle, that once republicans take over they might not have the votes in the house to be able to go and support ukraine more in the future. hence the reason for taking up that issue in the context of the lame duck. >> i don't have the u.s., number but the wall street journal will expect nato countries together have so far provided 40 billion dollars in weaponry to ukraine. that is roughly the size of france's annual defense budget. >> i think this is clearly a proxy battle that is going on. on the part of a number of countries. this is obviously a priority for many members.

>> one other topic, before we get to. calls the debt limit. >> yeah. >> when does a, hit remind us what it is, again? >> another good example. it doesn't hit until next, year so the debt limit is essentially they limit beyond which congress that has to subsequently approved the ability to borrow the borough authority of the country. i think a lot of democrats, again, our concerned that they might hold a debt limit hostage, hold the country hostage. by not raising the debt limit, given that we have a democratic president next year. and the reason for wanting to take up, now. i think there is an argument to be made that many of the best fiscal tears that we have gotten have actually been in the context of some of these debt limit fights. i'm particularly think that they have a strong argument. >> an example of one of those deals that is a good one? >> the control act of 2011 is the most recent great example. we had caps on discretionary

spending. it great expectations for where spending should be over the course of the next decade, and we had, agreement generally, from both parties. yes there were times when the budget caps were raised in adjusted and so, on along the way. there is a lot of evidence that we had more responsible fiscal outcomes under president obama, and the republican congress, louis otherwise would have had if we have not had that deal coming out of the fight in the early 2010s. >> calls up first, kentucky, susan, you're on with jonathan black >> howdy, sir. i hope you had a good thanksgiving and i was wondering when people say there is going to be a government shut down, exactly how many government people are going to be shut down? >> it is a good question. there are obviously parts of the governments that are deemed essential. we have had increasing amounts of the government to be deemed essential overtime. so there are certain things

that are subject to shut down and certain that are not. to some degree it is a bit of a misnomer, because it is not like everything in washington is just immediately shutting down. as we know from past experience, they are tended to be this willingness to be a little bit more political with shutdowns. when we close national park. things that have the interface directly with the public and creating political pressure. to have them -- >> pictures of the signs closed outside of yellowstone. >> exactly. there is a little, bit, again of a misnomer. i think how it plays again practice, to some degree there is a little bit more discretion there than we'd like to admit. >> question from twitter. what is the government program of the scene the biggest cost reduction in the last decades, and i also want to know what program is growing the most? >> great.

question if you look at why the national debt has expanded, so dramatically, there are a couple of factors at play. one is just entitlement spending, or so-called direct spending. here you have these programs that are essentially on autopilot, they are not voted on or review by congress on annual basis. and so you end up having a significant increase to the national debt and two outlays from the federal government, as a particular the baby boomers have retired. that has been, particularly troubling. it is something that i really wish members of both sides would come together. and address. we have had other countries, sweden, for example. they had an entitlement crisis in the nine days. and they dealt with in the came together even though they had a pretty generous social welfare programs. >> how do they deal with? it >> they imposed fiscal rules that essentially restricted are limited how much they were able to spend, based on how much tax revenue they had coming in. so there were a lot of countries, switzerland is perhaps the gold standard,

where we all know that switzerland has a really great fiscal system. and there is a reason why swiss banks are thing, for example, it is because they can to be very responsible with the country's finances. and they have done that because they have these fiscal rules in place, the basically limit where they are able to. span and not borrower go beyond those. means there are other portions of the budget that have obviously exploded, we think about wars or the budget for the pentagon, and we are seeing the national authorization act. i think it is possible to think that we will be over a trillion dollars, in a race of the tournament of time. it is kind of mind-boggling to think that would be spending over a billion trillion dollars on the pentagon on the annual basis. there are a lot of things like this, i, think that you need to be addressed outside of the mandatory spending. >> speaking of the, pentagon rebecca on, twitter the cannot pass an audit. they have been trying for three years. what is going on with that? >> it is super critical and

this is something that -- in our street have done a lot through the years. before you can go and really get your spending under control, he really needs no where it is going. and so other parts of the government are required to do an audit. i think it is a very fundamental thing in the private, sector that people are very familiar with. so, i would much rather -- i think it is a great starting. point ideas something from both sides, regardless of what the top line back to that the pentagon would, be it is the kind of thing that i think would bring people together. and it generally has. there's a lot of support to both sides of the aisle. but there's something that obviously there is always resistance and anytime you are trying to go and reform an agency or department from within. >> to david of new madison, ohio. an independent. you are on with jonathan but last. >> do you hear me? >> yes, sir. >> okay. what i would like to know is there any truth that the

government still gets paid when they have a shutdown? >> it depends on who, i guess. there are certain people who are deemed essential. the reality is that in hindsight, usually the government always reopens. we tend to go and pay people for the time the government was shut down. that is usually how it works and in the short term there is still obviously paying for government workers who are potentially not getting a paycheck, but generally speaking everyone ends up getting there. getting the money the end of the day. >> speaking of getting money at the end of the day, something we always want to the end of the, year tax extend are's efforts to extend various tax loopholes to different parts of the economy. is that happening again this year? >> it is certainly something that is being talked about and obviously a lot of people who want to see that kind of stuff. so yes i think that is possible. again, the laundry list of

things that people want to see addressed during the lame duck is getting longer by the day. even though the time period of the lame duck is getting shorter. >> what are some of those tactics that we track in the past? >> we tend not to focus on taxes as much as we do in the expenditure side, just because of the fact that when you look at why washington has a problem with the national debt that we do, it has to be driven so much more by the spending side of the ledger that they trackside. when you, look for, example president biden's record over the last two years, he has spent more and southern motion more spending than president trump did in his last two years. at the height of the covid pandemic. people necessarily talk about, this but trump was a bigger spending president, more so than obama and bush. so now you move into this new presidency and you think president biden has largely continue the legacy that exists

with president trump. a lot of this has been covid related. in the early stages of his presidency. we've had things like infrastructures, the chips act. other bills. even the inflation reduction act. even increase spending over time. and in the immediate term. to me that is where a lot of the diplomas are. the tax side does impact the budget. you do have things where reducing revenue has a significant impact on the national debt. the true driver if people continue to spend. >> put some numbers to the trump artist racially biden ministration comparison. last two years, about $3.3 >> sure. in the last four years of trump's term he put it in motion -- and spending trackers about 3.3 trillion dollars in new spending. you contrast that now with the biden ministration, which i believe is over 3.7 trillion. now obviously we are the much

different stage of the pandemic, we do not necessarily have a need to be spending in this way. we've had these are the priorities. i believe that one estimate has said that the biden administration so far has borrowed 4.8 trillion dollars. that is because it is not just the spending has been voted on by congress but also one of the executive orders. when you look at things like the student loan forgiveness or changes to the snap program, for example, these things are very expensive, to. some just being kicked into motion by executive orders. you have this very significant spending legacy. i think it is unfortunate, at a time when inflation is obviously the biggest economic concern for the majority of americans. and fiscal policy is not the only part of that, it is a significant part of. that you want fiscal policy, generally, to be working together with monetary policy. a federal reserve is raising interest rates to tamp down on inflation but then we still have washington spending a lot on the fiscal side.

that creates a disconnect, i think, between those two. >> this is drawn in pennsylvania. democrats. good morning. >> good morning. >> you are on with jonathan bullock. >> yes. democrat. >> what is your question or comment? >> i would like to see some of the richer folks pay some federal tax. they boast about a big military. and that's what we need, something to bring some of the cost down. >> for the rich to pay more taxes? >> their fair share. not more. >> when you consider a fair share, john? >> parental taxes every weekend of my paycheck. i don't know. some of the american people would like to see some of that. >> jonathan bazelak, what is a fair share? >> i think that is the rub. the idea had some citizens come

out last week about who is paying taxes. and what you find is it i believe for the first time in our nation's history, the top 2% of wage earners now pay more than 50% of all income taxes in this country. top 2% is paying more than half. that's really significant. and i think that sometimes there is a bit of a disconnect between what people think the wealthy are paying, and what they may actually be paying. i think most of us agree that there is obviously a rationale for a progressive tax system but the reality is that the spending that we have in the expenditures that we have are so dramatic that there is only so much of squeezing of the higher income cohorts that you really can do. and you kind of have a choice that i think is going to become increasingly important which is that either you have to start to go and restrain and be more responsible on the expenditure side or you're probably gonna have to raise taxes not just on

the wealthy but on the middle class and even on people who do not necessarily pay taxes, to be able to go and pay for a lot of those programs. sometimes i think that the perception as to what the actual tax base looks like is already radically different actually is. >> a few minutes left with jonathan for the lack of the artistry institute. if you do the conversation, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. a big question for mark stone. we can probably do the rest of the show on. this social security and medicare depletion date is 2030. five white should occur, and what politician or party wants to address it? >> to take that second question, the reality is that nobody wants to address its. i think it is unfortunate, as i said earlier. there are other countries that have similar arrangements. that have actually managed to go and get their fiscal house in order. and so we have seen cases where

social democrats have been able to come together with fiscal conservatives in those places. and make the kind of reforms that are necessary. i think, that unfortunately in this country, we have been hesitant to do so because there's just become so politicized. and the issues are sort of the third rail. i think there are a lot of things that we could talk about four hours on this. what i will say is that in the health care space obviously the those one of the areas where the government of the most heavily involved. i think there's a lot of evidence there ways to get to the government less involved that could actually go and have a positive impact on health care costs. he is not just the existence of the program that is the problem but the fact that health care spending in general is going up dramatically. this is their chart the gets showed around on twitter all the, time about how many things of the government is involved in the most of the things where we are seeing price increases. and then areas where prices are going, down there tends to be but a less of that involvement. that is one area to look.

at on social security, it is largely a money and the money a problem. again, like many other things, we only have a couple of choices. it is either to raise taxes, or it is change the way that benefits are being paid out. i would say that the ladder is probably the better way to go. the reality is that social security was not intended to be a source of income for 40 plus years. when it was instituted. and that is the reason why we are having a lot of these challenges that we are having now. i think that's not, unfortunately, raising the retirement age is probably not -- there is no real way to do that without substantial increases in payroll taxes. >> mccarthy the rest of the show on that. topic it to the evergreen state. good morning. >> good morning, guys. i will start with the discussion we're having this morning. republicans want more military spending.

is a look at this one on ukraine? how public is a huge shiver guess about that. second point is france, spending 50% more social spending than the united states. and the difference between the united states and france is that france can actually make claims that's by. >> they're a lot of things that we can talk about there i think it is important to recognize that the united states is certainly much wealthier than european countries. there is a trade-off there there is more generous social spending but generally speaking people in europe are worse off economically speaking than they are in the united states. that is not to say that there is not substantial hardship, of course, and huge amounts of inequality. but generally speaking we're in a better position and that is a trade-off we made as a country. i think. with respect to the pentagon budget, i agree with you. we should be applying the same

kind of fiscal responsibility that we demanded other parts of the government. to the pentagon as well. i think there is generally been this attitude that just spending more on the pentagon ends up resulting in making us safer and better national defense outcomes. i don't think that is true. i would argue quite strongly that imposing a budget constraints actually forces you to more stringent league consider what your options, are and where those trials more successfully. i would personally argue that we are talking about the farm, bill the w. education, as well as the department of defense. >> remind us about the f-35 program. >> is a classic example of something that was a plane that people wanted for a number of purposes. i think in scope that perhaps as well as they should. for many of these programs they cost us increase dramatically. now we are kind of in this bucket were on the one hand it is a sunk cost, but on the other hand it is probably more

expensive to start all over. we are constantly dealing with a plane that is tongue and cheek, says it can't fly but flies negative issues with. it it is tax payers that and the pm on the hook when things go and work properly. that is a classic example where we really need to go. and they planning at the front and is so so important to ensuring that the cost of orange don't happen down the road. >> last, call louis in evansville, indiana. live for democrats. good morning. >> good, morning how are you this morning? >> do we. we'll go ahead. >> there is a pie chart in the back of the federal income tax book and personal income tax and social security, medicare and unemployment taxes 45% of our income. corporate income taxes are only 3% of what we take in.

how come corporate how come it's not higher? >> a great question. a point to make there is that some coastal people look at corporate income tax, they think people over here in corporations are over. there but the reality the all they do with that corporate tax is passed along to consumers so it is not really clear that they would be better off raising corporate tax. you also if you consider that businesses now are basically multinational. they can choose whether based in the ability to be competitive on the world stage is very much based on corporate taxes. a lot of other factors here to consider beyond the short term, and that's not. obviously that raising corporate income tax would ultimately result in more money to the government. if you end up having more businesses moving overseas. and the ability to pass those taxes off to consumers. >>