we have to go out and give the country a choice. we know the practice but the country on. it was in a welfare state. it is true to the country's founding principles that is prosperous and pro-growth. it has a resoluble safety net. at least the country will get to choose what country they want from 21st century.

we will put these decisions and place. they will determine what kind of country we will be. i feel like we have a moral obligation to our country and constituents to give them a choice so they can choose. at least in 2012 they will have a real choice. i have to go botvote. >> do you regret vot yorke on tarp? no, i >> hate it. i do not regret it. i do believe it is to announce a too unknown. we wld have seen lots of

businesses could down. in the panicked moment we are in, but i think treasury and the fed did contribute to the panic. in the loma we are in, it had to pass it from taking place. was it administered correctly? no. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we will get reaction to the house gop 2012 budget plan from democratic congressman chris van hollen. he said his party alternative to the republican budget will be on the floor next week. this briefing is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. i am pleased to be here. >> we are here today to respond to the house republican budget.

we welcome an honest, vigorous, and respectful debate about the best way to move the country forward, to keep our fragile recovery going, to create jobs, and to reduce the deficit. we all agree that we must act now to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit in a steady, predictable, and responsible manner. the question is -- how do you best do that? as the by particle -- as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, and responsible effort to -- any responsible effort to tackle the deficit requires a balanced approach. this house republican plan failed that very simple tasks. . you have to hear the comments that were made today by both alan simpson and erskine bowles. i read from their statement --

the republican house plan falls short of the balanced comprehensive approach necessary to enact irresponsible plan. the republican plan largely exempt defense spending from reductions that would not apply any of the savings from eliminating or reducing tax expenditures as part of tax reform to deficit reduction. as a result, the chairman's plan raised -- relies on reductions in discretionary spending while also calling for savings and some safety net programs, cuts that would place a disproportionately adverse affect on disadvantaged populations. we have had the verdict rendered by the leaders of the bipartisan commission. the republican in a plan in the house fails the simple test of balance. in fact, if you look at the

republican plan, it is simply recycled, rigid, ideology that says we need to provide a big tax breaks to the very wealthy and a very powerful at the expense of the rest of the country. it is dressed up in a lot of nice sounding rhetoric about reform but in fact it is the same old tired playbook we have seen before. they preserve and increase tax cuts for the very wealthiest americans. they keep in place -- taxpayer giveaways to the oil and gas industry and other special corporate interests while the cut education for our kids, while they cut investment in research and science, and while they end the medicare guaranteed for seniors and require seniors to go into a private insurance plan and they

are at the whims of the insurance company with constantly lowering amounts of support, all the rest the ghost of the seniors. to govern is to choose. we believe their plan will weaken america in the long run. it is not courageous to protect the most powerful interests and a very wealthy at the expense of critical investment in our country. yet that is what they do going forward. i want to turn to these charts. it suggests the that they are way out of the mainstream when it comes to any responsible approach to the deficit. approach to deficit reduction. [unintelligible] you all remember david stockman, the budget director during the reagan administration. he finds it unconscionable that the the republican leadership,

faced with a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, could believe is good public policy to maintain tax cuts for the top 2%. it increases the tax breaks for the top 2%, because when you lower the top rate tonk, you'reg to be hitting middle-income tax payers to pay for the brakes at the very top. i listened earlier to the chairman of the committee, chairman ryan, when he was asked why they continue the tax breaks andthe folks at the pretop, he said that was necessary for economic growth of. the facts tell a different story. what this shows is that tax rates for the top income earners -- during the clinton administration, a period of

rapid economic growth in which 4% gdp growth, compared to what happened when you provided the first tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the folks at the very top. he felt it very strongly, only 2.1% real gdp growth during those years, even though you had the lower tax rates. the point is there are a lot of things that move the economy, and clearly that is not a primary factor, and anyone interested in his and the deficit as opposed to another ideological agenda recognizes you have to address that part of the equation. this is a similar chart. it shows job growth during the booming years during the clinton administration, when the economy was booming. again, during the eight years of the previous administration, when you had a lower tax rate for folks on top, you actually

lost 653,000 private-sector jobs. the idea that those marginal differences tried major economic decisions is just this proven by the facts. here is the difference, when you look at the fiscal commission, in terms of balance. but the rest of the fiscal commission and the house republican plan when it comes to revenues over the next 10 years, $2.50 trillion. the commission assumed we would return to the clinton-era tax rates at the very top. when you make those significant cuts, as the representatives said, you are going to cut into important investments. they are important to keeping our economy strong. we recognize there are cuts to be made in -- and gao has identified many of them, and you

hear in a minute about why it is important to maintain those investments, and then you will hear from john yarmouth about the tax cycle. i want to turn to the question of health care. there has been a lot of debate over the last many years on the health care question. every member of the budget committee, every member of the budget committee, republicans and democrats alike, understand that rising health care costs represent a huge challenge for the federal budget, as they do for every family budget, because the reality is the health care costs in medicare and medicaid have been tracking the health care rising costs in the rest of the health care system over the last 30 years. just the last 10 years, the growth and cost of medicaid is much lower than the increase of

health care costs in the private sector. so when you look at this problem you have to recognize it is the challenge to get overall health- care costs down. and that is why passing the affordable care act last year was so important, because it is designed to drive down the costs per person of health care over the long run. in fact, we heard some talk earlier today from dr. rivlin's approach. when she talked a few weeks ago before the committee, she indicated it would be a huge mistake to repeal the affordable care act. and here is what she said. "repealing it would cause needless economic harm and would set back efforts to create a more disciplined and more

effective health care system." she also said, "i believe every idea about recalling about reducing costs was incorporated in some way into the affordable care act and we need to find it here " she said, "i believe the affordable care act as the potential to --" this is a chart put together by the medicare trustees based on their data that shows if you implement the affordable care act as it was passed, you will indeed bring down the cost of medicare over a period of time. i want to say a word about the so-called reforms in the republican proposal. and i want people to focus on this fact. you may remember that during the

last campaign republican candidates ran all sorts of ads against the democrats saying that these last $500 billion out of medicare. in fact, in an op-ed written for local paper, chairman of ryan said president obama broke his promises the seniors like cutting medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. the reality, if you look at the budget, all those medicare reforms that we made, including ending the overpayments to medicare advantage, including other reforms, to bring down the cost of health care during the next 10-your window, it looks to us like they have kept a very savings in their medicare -- in medicare that the railed against over the last couple months and years. in fact, that is the cause of

the medicare number they have in the budget. the health care reforms enacted in the affordable care act, which they say they are repealing, they are not repealing all of them. they are keeping as far as we can tell the savings in medicare, and the savings that were made with the democratic majority in congress rec rit -- represent a significant amount of the funds available in medicare over the next 10 years. what do they do? the essentially and medicare as we know it. they do not reform it. .hey deform it they say you got to go into the private insurance market, and we will get a voucher will reduce value over time, and all the

risk of increased cost in health care system will be borne by the medicare beneficiary, the seniors. even as they get rid of the mechanism they kept, that they did not -- that they got rid of, and health care reform bill, which the creation of a commission, to help recommend and reduce costs. they got rid of that, which will lead to increases costs in medicare, and they put all the rest and burden on the senior citizen under medicare. it is a radical change, and it is extremely bad for seniors. finally, i want to say with respect to medicare, allison schwartz is got to talking about the medicare cuts. i want to turn briefly to medicaid, but simply put, turning medicaid into a block

grant program is just code for cutting deeply into supports for seniors in nursing homes, seniors in an assisted living facilities, low-income kids, disabled individuals, and a most deplorable population. it is the blank check the governors with a license to cut those individuals -- cut the support for those individuals in our society. it is certainly not courageous to pick on some of the most vulnerable in our society. finally, i will end by saying this notion, the orwellian notion that ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and block- granting medicare that will help hurt individuals in nursing homes and other settings, to suggest that that is done to

save medicare is a little reminiscent of that twisted saying that you have to this juror the bill in order to save it. this will do terrible damage to medicare and medicaid and everybody who has paid into the medicare system and relies on the system for their supports, and all of us know it was not that long ago that republican members of congress surely thought the establishment of medicare, the establishment of social security, and certainly we are not going to stand by while they undermine the fundamental integrity's of those important supports for seniors and others in our society, which all of those seniors had paid into that system. with that, i'm going to turn it over to congressman john

yarmouth, a great member of the committee from kentucky, who is got to talk about the republican approach to tax cuts for the wealthy. >> thank you very much, crossbhris. i ran for congress in times during difficult circumstances for americans, and fighting two wars, and the notion we should cut taxes for the wealthy was offensive and demonstrated the wrong values, and that was at a time when the social safety net was much better than it will be under the republican budget. mr. ryan calls this budget the path to prosperity. it is actually a payback for the prosperous. this is a budget that asks virtually all americans to suffer, to take a little pain,

but it has nothing -- it asks nothing of the wealthiest americans, the ones who have experienced the greatest in come and wealth in the last 10 years, at least in the last 90 years. what we have seen here under the ryan budget is a proposal that over the next eight years will reduce taxes for the wealthiest 2% of americans, by $870 billion, at the same time as crist mentioned and others will, cutting medicaid by $1 trillion, cutting education funding, cutting research and development, cutting support programs for low-income seniors and people with low-income families with children, all of the things that reflect well on how -- and our values as a nation. they do not ask the wealthiest pay a penny. they maintain all of the tax breaks for the oil companies in spite of the fact that they have

made $900 billion in profit over the last decade. they have maintained all the tax breaks, all the tax expenditures, which amount to one trillion -- $1 trillion a year, expenditures which if they were actually recorded on the budget as government programs, republicans would -- about, and there are -- as expenditures alone amount of all of the discretionary spending in the budget, including defense. they do not touch any of this. this is the most imbalanced, reckless budget that has been offered in modern history. it exacts a high price on virtually all americans accept the very wealthiest. this is $800 billion versus 707

$1 billion cut in medicaid. these are the wealthy. those are the people who need care and need aid. i want to say one thing about this notion that you can -- you need to cut taxes to generate economic prosperity. my brother was in the barbecue restaurant business. he does very, very well. i am an investor and that business. we would be impacted to return to the pre-bush tax counsel. my brother said i'm going to support barack obama this year even though i was always republican and always wanted to pay less tax. he said i finally realized if nobody can afford a barbecue, it does not matter what my tax rate is. this is a statement about where we are as a country. does not matter what these tax rates are for anybody if there is no business. business people recognize that. we had a meeting yesterday,

white house business council roundtable, all business people in the room. sponsored by the chamber of commerce. everybody in that room was asking for more government support for education, for things like child care, research and development, and i thought i was in a progressive caucus meeting, and these were business people. they did not mention tax rates on the wealthiest people in the country. they need -- they know we need to make the investment in human capital. this budget does not do that. it imposes great pain on the people who can least the stand it and gives great benefit to the people who do not need it. >> thank you, john. next we are going to hear from a new member of the committee, who is got to talk about keeping investments to keep the country strong. >> thank you.

i am impressed with the work of my colleagues in the democratic ranks have done in the last several weeks to bring some balance to the equation. i firmly believe that america needs and deserves a plan that creates jobs, not cost jobs. and that plan for america and her work -- and for working families requires that it be written with courage, not cowardice. i see this plan as a clarion wake-up call. working families across the country should have the sound alarm at home, bair belair. this is an attack on middle- class families, working class families. it is an attack on programs that respond to growing jobs. undeniably, the message that we have all heard, from the

republicans in alaskan town, jobs, jobs, jobs, professed by all candidates. where is the jobs package? i am not surprised that this reduces jobs because in the last three months of the 112th session, we have seen no jobs legislation by the majority. the team continues. they want to disrupt the steady upward moving forward that has produced 1.8 million jobs since the start of 2010. private sector jobs, absolutely an incredible comeback from the painful, very long and painful recession that drank our economy of 8.2 million jobs. look at the steady, precipitous decline of american jobs. and then the turning point that comes early in 2009.

as we begin to climb upward. why would we want to disrupt, disrupt that steady progress? this is -- i've heard of vood jeff: economics. -- voodoo economics. this makes voodoo economics look pale. ness an attack that reduces jobs at a time that we need to invest in jobs. and we seem to defund with this plan. to be competitive. this dulls our competitiveness. it attacks our middle class. and it does not provide the investments that we need for a stronger economy. now, the economics we see on this bar graph, the assessment they have done on this plan and whether you buy the 200,000 or 975,000, everyone is suggesting

that it's going to drain jobs. this is creating the slippery slope. while we climb the mountain to get to $1.8 million the slippery slope that enables us now with their plan to lose jobs. which is certainly the wrong direction to follow. how do we do that? well, they suggest that we drain $29 billion from education and training. $29 billion. they suggest $276 billion be removed for the sake of transportation over a 10-year period. and then with science, and tech, a $50 billion reduction over 10 years. now, be mindful as we engage in this global race on clean energy and innovation, i agree with the president when he says whoever wins this race emerges the go-to nation. you will be the exporter of energy, intellect, innovation, and clean energy ideas. why would we want to put that

at risk? we have just received the news recently that we have dropped a third in private sector investment for energy transformation after, after china and germany. the america i know and love is number one. and that's what this democratic minority in the house is about. keeping america number one. this is a slash on jobs. it will impact our economy tremendously. because it has been stated so many times by economists, the jobs issue, unemployment, is driving the deficit. if we invest in job creation and job retention, we can very much expect an impact on reducing that deficit. i think the road map here, the ryan road map, is the way to the cliff. and then over the cliff. it will wreck our economic comeback. it will destroy the hope that we want to provide, should provide for america's working families. it devastates the work force of

the future by impacting on education funding and denies r&d, research and development, at a time that's most critical. think of it. we won the global race on spas because we commetted with passionate resolve to make a difference and we landed that person first on the moon. simply because we committed our resources, our energy, and our passions to making it happen. look at what we're doing here. we're challenged to enter a global race on clean energy and innovation and our response from the ryan road map, from the republican majority in the house, defund. disinvest. don't worry about the r&d. don't worry about making it in america. invest in manufacturing, no such way. this is a dreadful outcome. it required courage. we got cowardice. as we go forward we need to fix this plan. a clarion wake-up call for america and her workers. let's denounce this plan from the republican majority. >> thank you, paul. next we're going to hear from karen bass who i said earlier

is one of our new members who comes to us from state politics in california and knows very clearly the impact of the republican medicaid proposals as well as others. >> thank you. just like the road map to america's future, the republican path to prosperity is a pathway to despair. the republicans are concerned about kicking the can down the road. but they have no problem kicking seniors and children to the curb. the 60-page document that we received today is an ideological statement that ironically captures democratic language and gives lib service to democratic values while covering up a radical agenda that would dramatically alter the quality of life for many working families. the america they paint with their budget prom is a country we wouldn't recognize. really look -- i really look forward to the details of the republican plan. what we need is a balanced

approach that speaker after speaker at the budget committee said we must to address the deficit through a balanced approach. in their proposal, they propose no revenue. they only propose cuts and schemes. giving lip service to democratic values and language, i want to give a couple of examples. they talk about ending corporate welfare. he thought that was pretty ironic and their couple of examples for how they want to end corporate welfare is to revisit the financial reform regulation. they want to praoistize fannie and fredi. and they want to lift more torms on oil drilling. this is the way you end corporate welfare. they want to protect the safety net by massively cutting medicaid and having vouchers for medicare. it's not enough to say that if you're over 55 you're protected. thank you. i know that i'm protected now. but the concern is about the future. but yet the republicans would leave future generations without the resources for

health care which ultimately on medicaid would result in a 35% cut. over half the users of medicaid are children. seniors use medicaid to pay for expenses that medicare doesn't cover. that's why i said the republicans are willing to kick seniors and children to the curb while expressing concern for keking the can down the road. many governors have already weighed in on this proposal. and are objecting to the way they're talking about reforming medicaid. states should not be left to decide which populations are services to cover. under the guise of having flexibility for the states, if you look at it down the line, it really just resorts -- results in a cut. a significant cut to medicaid. i do have to hand it to my republican colleagues. because maybe the way they attempt to capture our language and give lip service to our values, i think we should spend

some time explaining what those terms mean. corporate welfare, concern about the safety net, is very transparent to think that you can use language to hide a very radical agenda and trick people into believing that the pathway to process tarot is not a pathway to despair. the way that they are talking about medicare and medicaid, forces seniors out of the system and into private insurance. and leaves children and disabled without the safety net. thank you very much. >> thank you, karen. next we're going to hear from one. veteran members of the committee who knows all these issues very well. our colleague, allison schwartz. >> thank you. and i just want to i guess do a little bit of cleanup here. i want to speak specifically to seniors. before i do i want to share my -- associate myself with my colleagues' comments that budgets are about values and about our priorities. and to me, and i have served on the budget committee for three

terms now and my fourth term on the budget committee. and i have seen each year as we deal with the budget and the fact that the budget should be about three things. they are about meeting our obligations, as a nation, it is about being fiscally responsible, and that's particularly important as we have the challenge of the deficit before us. and it's about growing the economy and preparing for the future. and this budget fails all three. i'm going to speak specifically about the fact that this budget really puts seniors, american seniors, at great risk. they have as you may remember, that the republicans railed against the health reform law, that's now the law of the land. and yet they scared seniors into believing that they -- there would be cuts to their benefits. there were no cuts to their benefits and there were enhancements to their benefits and ail speak to that in a moment. but this is a budget and what they're planning to do on medicare and medicaid should scare every senior in this

country. and every american who someday they hope will be a senior. so within 10 years, we will not recognize medicare or medicaid. seniors will essentially be on their own. to find health insurance in an individual private marketplace that has failed most americans in this country. so this budget, as they have put forward, and seniors know this, understand that they are praoistizing medicare. 69% of seniors oppose privatization. the republicans are not listening. seniors know that dismantling medicare and replacing it with a voucher program means that they no longer will have access to a guaranteed set of health benefits. there will be no guaranteed health benefits under medicare. they know that the value of a limited voucher, one that's capped, will not enable them to meet the rising costs of health

care. they will know that they will have to pay more out-of-pocket and more in premiums. unfortunately, the republicans are proud of this. and they are telling their seniors that they are -- they will be on their own to deal with the insurance industry. that they will be on their own to deal with limits on benefits. they will be on their own on uncertainty of an illness occurs or if they need long-term care. that they may well be -- there may be seclusions for certain kinds of care. specialists or primary care or settings when you can get care. that there could be discrimination based on income and levels of illness and age. and i want to throw in medicaid. which is going to be block granted to states. understand that 62% of medicaid expenses are for long-term care for seniors. so we want to talk about women and children. i'm happy to do that. but for seniors, this is devastating. any american who has a loved one in a nursing home could well have to pay that out-of-pocket in the future.

because medicaid won't be there for them. and have to bring them home to care for them. so this is -- this same time that they're doing this for seniors, the -- there's no question that they are protecting -- you've heard some of this already -- they are spending the same amount of money if not more to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans. that's $700 billion. they're protecting tax cuts for the oil industry. and they're continuing about guaranteeing not to deal with the issues of inefficiencies in the pentagon. there are all of us, and this was said before, all of us on the committee, republicans and democrats, believe very, very strongly that we have to deal with this deficit. and we should. but the way we do it matters. do we do it on the backs of seniors? or do we do it in a way that shares it across the spectrum and tackling not only spending cuts but tax expenditures and costs in other arenas?

and that is -- that is really the debate we're having here. and again, republicans chose last session to ignore the cost savings and strengthening of medicare for our seniors. they sit back and in fact demonize the plan voting time and i'm again to end -- to stop improvements of mccrery for our seniors. -- of medicare for power seniors. and repeal the law that limits co-pamentse for preventative services for seniors and makes prescription drugs more affordable for our seniors and improves coordination of care and reduces errors and improves patient car and outcomes for power seniors. they want to repeal the law that curbs the growth and -- of medicare spending. and extends the fiscal life of medicare trust fund by 12 years. and it saves taxpayers $400 billion by ending overpayments to insurance companies. that's what they want to stop. instead, republicans here in washington want to end medicare

as we know it for seniors. and again, i will end with where i started. if seniors were scared last year falsely by the republicans, this year, the republicans are right to say to american seniors that you have every right to be scared. because you will be on your own. you're going to get a voucher that's limited. that won't grow. and you're going to have to negotiate with the insurance companies on your own. you tell that to my 91-year-old father who's right now in -- trying to get off a vent lator. how is he going to negotiate when his medicare benefits are up? to be able to find the private health insurance that he needs? he simply won't be able to do it. it's going to fall on all of us. ness a decision we have to make. this is a question of our priorities. are we willing to say we are going to balance the budget and actually our ranking member said it doesn't even do a very good job of that. are we going to take money away from seniors? and wheel we end medicare as we know it and medicaid as we know

it and protect the wealthiest 2% of americans and corporate america? that's our decision. instead, we ought to get serious and meet our obligations to our seniors and our children and to our future and we can do that. and we should. we're not going to do it with the reinbudget. thank you. -- with the ryan budget. thank you. >> thank you, allison. happy to answer any questions you have. >> in the reinbudget, is there anything you can work with or do you have your on plan that you guys are putting forward or let's raise taxes on the top 2%? >> two things. obviously we've seen the major pieces of the republican budget here in the house. we haven't had a chance to dig down so far it's very hard to find something that meets the objectives that we've talked about. which is having a balanced approach to a deficit reduction. yes, the democratic caucus will have an alternative.

and the alternative will reduce the deficits in a serious and predictable and steady way. and it will demonstrate a very different approach going forward. yeah. >> mr. van holen, the ryan budget is already being cast as the platform for republicans' economic argument in 2012 including for their eventual nominee against president obama. can you speak to the political significance of this document and how you think it can play next year? >> it's going to be up to every republican candidate for president to decide whether they want to run with this particular republican plan or not. i would just suggest that they're going to want to take a very careful look at it. because in addition to slashing very important investments that are necessary for our economic growth, and the strength of the country, it also essentially undercuts entirely the bargain that we've made with seniors as

we've discussed. and what it does is as that we're going to end the medicare guarantee, throw seniors over to the winds of the private insurance market, and we've already seen rates rising in the private insurance market and you the senior are going to bear the entire risk of that added cost. so it's a budget that as we said has just totally skewed a misplaced priority that benefits the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of important investments. and at the expense of seniors. >> if i could just walk back a moment. you said earlier in your comments that to govern is to choose. and republicans have said repeatedly that democrats didn't pass a budget when you were governing. and the reason they have to do all this cutting spending is because you put them there in

the first place. >> well, two things. first of all, when you talk about the fiscal year 2011 budget, which is the debate going on right now over a very small portion of the budget, the fact is that the democrats did pass last year a budget enforcement resolution that set out the targets very clearly as to what should govern this year. in fact, when you hear the debate, that republicans are making about how we have to make changes to that, that's because there was the other alternative out there. today, what we're talking about is really where the discussion should move to, which is taking a look at the federal budget as a whole. and part of the issue with the debate going on about 2011 is republicans only want to talk about specific cuts to a particular part of the budget. they don't want to talk about cuts that would involve taking the subsidies away from the oil industry.

they don't want to take away loopholes in the tax code that benefit corporations and result in having many major corporations pay absolutely no income tax to share in making sure that the country is strong. so look, that is the -- that's going to be the debate going forward. we're talking about both fiscal year 2011 and 2012. >> so that's an old argument then? >> i'm sorry? >> that's an old argument? >> a totally old argument and ignores the fact that we did have the one-year blueprint there, yeah. >> can you give us a time line on when you plan to unveil your own budget alternative? will it be ready for next week when the committee looks to mark up mr. ryan's plan? >> we're marking up the republican plan tomorrow. certainly the democratic alternative will be ready for floor debate a week from tomorrow. yeah. >> on medicare, chairman ryan is saying his plan is not necessarily a voucher program because the government would be negotiating with insurers and seniors have the option

comparing it to the plans that members of congress have. but it sounds like you aren't seeing it that way. >> not at all. and whether you want to call it a voucher or whether he wants to call it a premium support program, it all comes down to the same thing the way he has it designed. which says that number one, seniors no longer will have the option of being in the medicare program that they're in today, the fee for service medicare program. they will be required to go into the private insurance market, number one. number two, the value of the voucher or premium support, whatever you want to call it, does not rise at the rate of health care inflation. and what the republican budget does is says to seniors, you're on your own. you got to pick up the entire cost of that instead of the approach we've taken which is in order to reduce costs in the health care stem touch treat

the whole health care system and get rid of the inefficiencies where so many americans were getting their primary health care at the hospitals, driving up costs for that. which is why dr. rivlin has said number one, make sure you don't dismantle that because it does help bend the medicare cost curve. but in short, what they do as i said is shift the entire risk to higher -- to seniors just a word on the federal employee health benefit plan. and the other analogies. under that plan, the employees get a fixed share of the cost. in other words, the employer, in that case the federal government, shares the risks of rising health care costs. under the republican plan, that's not the case. the burden of the rising costs is on the senior. you're on your own. >> and some of this, the details obviously have yet to be worked out. and when you hear whether a

voucher or premium support, that suggests that there will be a gap, right? and also, they also want to make it means tested. so where that break is could matter a lot. if you're saying ok, etc. seniors above $20,000 income. and are we only going to give -- going to get less and less support from the federal government at the higher you go above $20,000 income. that's a low threshold. we've heard some of those numbers. so it could well leave literally tens of thousands and millions of seniors at great risk for bearing the greater burden of both out-of-pocket costs and premium support. or buying insurance that really does not cover their health care needs. and that -- a group like this, all seniors, i always joke, my senior groups and say any of you on medication? and they all laugh. and any of you on two medications, three medications? and even healthy seniors actually are pretty costly to take care of. we've discovered that in government. that's why we've instituted a

whole variety of innovations to improve quality and improve outcome. but we're doing that by asking the payers and the providers, hospitals and doctors, nursing homes, to do a better job, spend less money, make sure that people are getting the health care they need. not putting it on the backs of seniors. thank you. >> and it also will mean that you don't get to pick your doctor unless the doctor happens to be on the plan that you can afford. it rations health care this time by the income of the senior. because you're only going to be able to purchase what benefits are offered. for that price. you don't get your doctor, you don't get those benefits. >> we can take one more or two more and then we got to go. one and two. ok. >> the white house didn't address, the proposal, and are you going to do that or fall back on health care reform bill as your statement on it?

>> let me say something. the republican bill, i want to make this very clear. i want to make this very clear. in the next 10 years, the revenue they get from so-called medicare reform is the -- are the savings that were generated as a result of the passage of the affordable care act. i want to be very clear about that. they demagogued those medicare reforms. they said we were just slashing medicare when enact we were removing the subsidies for medicare advantage plans, the overpayments. they were getting reimbursed with taxpayer dollars at 114% of fee for service. that is the primary sort of -- they've taken those savings, the same ones that they criticized, in their plan. so -- do we end the medicare guarantee for seniors? absolutely not. we got one more. >> one of the things mr. ryan said in his presser was he was

hoping that maybe on the social security portion of this bill that we can come to an agreement with the democrats. do you see anything like that with the social security language you've seen? >> well, we haven't seen exactly what they do with respect to social security. we'll have an opportunity to do that. our view is that you should not balance the budgets on the back of social security. that social security can pay 100% of the benefits up to the year 2037. after that, if you do nothing at all, those benefits will drop. so i believe that we should, apart from this particular budget negotiations, and the deficit reduction, apart from that, we should get together on a bipartisan basis like tip o'neill did and with ronald reagan, and try and address that issue. but again, we shouldn't be balancing budgets or reducing deficits by cutting social security. >> will you vote on the

short-term -- will you vote if it pops up? you won't shut the government down? >> have to tie a look at it. -- to take a look at it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> committee members will debate and offer amendments to chairman paul ryan's budget proposal released yesterday. you can go to c-span.org. that is live coverage on cspan 3. studentcam 's

competition asked students to consider washington, d.c. through their lens. this is about an issue that better help them understand the role of the federal government. ♪ ♪ >> president barack obama signs face of health care in america forever. it is a patient protection and affordable care act. 240 "-- 2490 pages in length. it will not be fully implemented until 2014. a group of individuals who applaud the law gather in a backyard in falls church, virginia. president obama outlines the elements of the patient's bill of rights that take effect that month. lifetime caps on medical expenses are eliminated. children's pre-existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. young people without insurance

are covered by their parents' insurance to age 26. preventive care is covered by all insurance policies. >> over the long term, can actually save people money because you get diagnosed quicker. all these things are designed not to have government more involved in health care. they are designed to make sure you have basic protections in your interactions with your insurance company, that you are getting what you paid for. >> in milwaukee, they announced the elimination of 130 jobs. the retiring ceo blames the legislation. >> when it got down to the politics of making a final bill, the only thing that really is meaningful in the bill has to do with health insurance and how it is financed. >> arguably, the measure in this law that will impact the industry most is the change in the medical low ratio.

this provision mandates that insurance companies must devote at least 80% of the premium to pay for medical claims. this limits the administrative costs and profits the companies enjoy. >> i still question that provision. it just did not make sense. it was rather arbitrary is hurting the employment in wisconsin and around the country at a time when jobs are hard to find. >> a financial analyst for an insurance company explains the impact of this mor on the insurance industry. >> one of the consequences is it will make it significantly more difficult for smaller companies to survive. >> the work for the past seven years for health insurance organizations is terminated. >> in the absence of the affordable care act, i don't believe my position would have been eliminated. >> senator russ feingold is a

bid for reelection to a businessman who has no previous political experience. his platform pivots on the repeal of the affordable health care act. i waukesha businessman whose company employs 35 people plans federal legislation for the astronomical rise in his health care premiums. >> the problem in small business is we just got our renewal for insurance and it reflected at 25% net increase in our health care cost for next year. we are in a period of time when it is challenging barry we cannot go to our customers with higher prices. we have already negotiated the best enterprises weekend. profits are depressed. i now faced with a 25% increase. how do i allocate that cost down when i am trying to provide jobs for these people? where do i go with these costs? our insurance company representatives have said that we are not sure. you are seeing the uncertainty

in today's health care climate reflected in that increase. >> this is my home town, waukesha, wisconsin. it is a present -- pretty town nestled on the fox river with a population of about 69,000 people. 10.6% of them live below the poverty line. the median family income is on the decline. it is from $59,000 down to $52,000. these are not pretty statistics. they represent what my dad would call looming clouds. maybe this is where i should talk about my dad. he is 51 years old and suffers from all sorts of colitis and crones' disease. he has been hospitalized 12 times. >> i saw an anesthesiologist prior to one of my surgeries'.

he said you need one major hospitalization and your file is as thick as a phone box. the bills are just as effective them on my dad is for some because he is a teacher and his insurance has been excellent. >> he knows that could change. financial stability and could help balance on the same teeter totters. . waukesha, wisconsin is a long way from washington d.c. when john f. kennedy said there were risks and costs to a program of action that they are far less than a long-range risks and costs of comfortable in action. the american academy of pediatrics favors this law because they see the long-term payoff. >> the main ones are that everyone is covered. knowing some people that have gone through devastating illness that has cost them everything -- you hear those

stories over and over and you get kind of immune. you see the show from obama in the backyard and a woman and you see that -- and you say that is one story. there are 50 million stories out there like that. universal coverage would be number one. pre-existing conditions and coverage for kids health care, preventive care will pay off in the long run. i think there are certain things that if the seed sown now will have big payoff and keeping our kids healthy and well- educated, those things will pay off big devon's down the road. >> i know is complicated the implementation will be a long bumpy ride. what i find in this legislation is that in the and i have the

security of knowing the members of my family will never be denied treatment because of money. my family will never lose our home because of illness. because of the affordable health care act, it is now a security that everyone has. that is the way i see it through my lens. ♪ >> go to studentscam.org to watch all the videos. you can continue the conversation at our facebook and video pages. >> "washington journal" is next. the house cavils and at 10:00 eastern and legislative work begins at noon. the chamber will debate a republican measure that would block greenhouse gas regulations print live house coverage here on c-span. on c-span.