tv Today in Washington CSPAN May 26, 2011 2:00am-5:59am EDT
2:00 am
this is typical. the president is the commander in chief. he has to work this through this joint chief of staff. we have made a significant commitment recently. >> this team says bob gates has said>> well, let's -- >> have you heard him weigh in on this? >> the president and chief of staff have had many conversations with the secretary of defense, and i a party to some of those, but i am not going to discuss them. i think he understands that this has to be part of the overall effort to get our budget under
2:01 am
control. >> let's get some information. as the father of a child with special needs, nevertheless, when does our debt reached a level where good intentions to day become crushing burdens on the next generation tomorrow? >> i think that is a great question, and i think the spirit of that is very touching. this is a person who has a child with special needs, but they're willing to be part of the shared sacrifice. but i have to say, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things, and i am just want to say from a policy perspective, and i say this to everyone in the room, there is a discussion about the revenue side and the policy side, but from the value perspective, we should be very deeply troubled by the medicaid cuts in the house republican plan. i want to make clear what they
2:02 am
are. this is not my numbers. this is theirs. after they complete the repeal of the affordable care at, which would take away coverage for 34 million americans, after they have completely done this, it would cut medicaid by $70 billion. ? that would cut the program by 35%. by 2030, it would cut projected spending and medicaid by half, by 49%, so, of course, i do not think or imply any-intentions or a lack of compassion, but there is a tyranny of the numbers that we have to face, and here is the tyranny of the numbers. 64% of medicaid spending goes to
2:03 am
older people in nursing homes or families who have someone with serious disabilities. another 22% goes to 35 million very poor children. now, i ask you, how could you possibly cut 30% of the budget and not heard hundreds of thousands if not millions of families who are dealing with a parent or grandparent in a nursing home or a child with serious disabilities? how is the math possible. if you try to protect them mathematically, you would have to eliminate coverage for all 34 million children. now, i know some people did not like when the president mentioned this was going to be very negative for families, and they are dedicated to doing everything they can but here is
2:04 am
the reality. medicaid does help so many families in those situations. over those years, we have allowed them to get help and medicaid. we will tell the and come after you have sped down medical costs. there is a program that was passed by president reagan that says if you have a child in need of institutional care, you can get help from medicaid. this is a light support for many of these families, but these are optional. if you are going to cut 49% of projected medicaid spending by 2030, do you really think that these programs will not be seriously hurt, so when we say that the tyranny of the math is that this medicaid program, this
2:05 am
cut, it will lead to millions of poor children, children with serious disabilities, children with autism, elderly americans in nursing homes, losing their coverage or having it significantly cut, we are not criticizing their plan. we are just simply explaining their plan. >> one more question for viewers, from andover. will not putting america back to work help reduce the deficit? >> you know, absolutely. i think when people talk about the efforts that were done, we have to understand what happened. we inherited a very, very deep deficits, and there is no question that we did efforts through the recovery act to add money temporarily to the deficit to help get our economy back, but we do not -- we think it helps prevent us from going into
2:06 am
a long deep recession or even a depression. we are at a point right now where we have 9% unemployment. this is not good enough. we have to do this the right way. we have to be able to say that we are giving confidence to investors and people who create jobs around the world that the united states is still a good place to invest, because we get our fiscal house in order, we are willing to implement significant cuts and select revenue increases to do so, but we do so in a way that is phased in and does not hurt our economy, because that would be counterproductive. and secondly, i wanted to make this point, because i think it is important. for so many people who have devoted themselves to us dealing with the baby boomers' retirements, the long-term
2:07 am
retirement, part of the theory behind it this is that we did not want to be a society that spent so much just on older americans that we lost our ability to invest in children and education and science and research and innovation that is important to our future productivity. it was very much that type of thinking that led so many people to want to deal early on with the aging of our population, but what is happening right now is there has become i think a very unfortunate desire to simply cut domestic discretionary spending across the board to unprecedented low levels, even though this is the area where the national institutes of health, the national science foundation, pell grant, head start, we need to do fiscal discipline going forward, but as the president said, a plane that
2:08 am
is loaded up so high need to have the weight taken off of it, but you do not take the engine out, and this does not take the levels of domestic spending that it might sound good for press releases, might sound good, but where is the fundamental -- one of the fundamental goals for dealing with the entitlement situation by failing to invest in our children, failing to invest in medical research, innovation, and i think that is very, very important as go -- as we go forward. >> what aspect of mr. ryan's planned? -- plan? >> i think there are places that are very difficult for us to go to. i think the hardest really, when you look at medicaid block grants or food stamp block grants, i think those are things
2:09 am
that would be very, very difficult for us to support. number one, we think it takes away the basic social contact in those programs. it would lead to the type of very unfortunate cuts that we just discussed. and i do not think it is wise policy. the federal reserve estimates what they call automatic stabilizers, things like food stamps and unemployment insurance and medicaid, where we increase spending as we go through recessions or more people go into poverty, it helps me that our business cycle or recession. doing this will not only be bad for some of the hard-pressed americans, but it would be unwise macroeconomic policy, because it would reduce the automatic stabilizers in our economy, so i think those kinds of block grants are difficult. we are open to talking about many ideas on medicare, but for the reasons i have discussed, i
2:10 am
think the current republican medicare plan is just very, very poorly designed. to make beneficiaries pay $6,000 more so the government can get $615 more in savings, you know, that is what people say about my basketball skills. he is slow, but he cannot jump. it puts a lot of cost on beneficiaries, but it does not save a lot with the government. if you want to go into the areas of reform, you have to do so carefully, and you have to be not upset, basic guarantees that i think are important. but, look. we have basically agreed above a level of discretionary savings that are consistent. we have put in a level of medicare and medicaid plans that are consistent with the simpson plan. the only places where we do not go as far as they do our
2:11 am
defense. we have a balanced plan. we are taking nothing off of the table. but i hope, chairman ryan, he is someone i like very much personally, and i think he has a lot of sincerity, but i think in their desire to live by what is an ideological view that you cannot have a penny of revenues, it forces you to do things like the medicaid savings, that when you look at the details, i do not think many of the people who voted would really supported if they understood the full implications. >> a final question here. what are the fiscal goals of this year, and how would you achieve them, briefly? >> this is one place where i
2:12 am
think we agree very much with what chairman ryan said. we have got to get a down payment now. a lot of people judge around the world, it is not that they say -- i do not know that people when they look at what gives confidence in our economy, though, if it is at 2.2, and we have confidence at 2.8, we do not. i think that they start with the view of enormous confidence. people have a positive bias towards the united states. we are, even in an ugly economy, we are often the prettiest in the room. we are often the safest haven, even when people are the most loyal around the world, so we have something very special, and we need to protect it. this is why you cannot play games. you just cannot play games. it is a treasured asset that we inherited from alexander hamilton.
2:13 am
r creditworthiness, are full faith and credit, it is something that is the gold standard. we do not want to do anything that would in any way deal with that. if we got a serious down payment on debt reduction of 2011, i think that would be way above the expectations that people would have had in november, when they saw we are in a period of divided government, and my guess is that a serious down payment is not going to get you all of the way there. it does not happen all at one time. to be bipartisan, president bush, the older president bush, started in 1990. he did not go far enough.
2:14 am
president clinton put forward a plan in 1993 that no republicans supported. newt gingrich and bill clinton came together. so i think what people need to see is that we are on the right path, so i think getting a serious deficit reduction package, which means looking for the areas we agree on, trying to press each side, so you hold hands together, something which is difficult for each to do alone but together, it is politically viable and economically important to the country. that would be the most important thing. i will say that i am fortunate to be one of the people at the table for the discussions. and if you are in that room, you would really be struck by the
2:15 am
seriousness and purpose, the degree that people are going line by line, and i think there is trust building up. you sit in a room, and you have discussions, and everyone, including cantor, who comes prepared, giving talks rather than speeches. it is a negotiating group with people selected by the leadership. i cannot tell you that you would get all of the way to the finish line, but there is a real seriousness of purpose in the room that gives me reason for optimism. >> governor daniels,
2:16 am
unfortunately, he seems determined to go on being known, is a good example of what i take to mean political culture. they have gotten to a low-key but effective leadership, which i think is fair to say he is exemplary. the united states is menaced by a survival threat lethal to liberty, more improbable than before. this was referring to the meddlesome red ink. in indiana, you took a deficit, and became a $1.3 billion surplus. could you do the same thing in washington? >> first of all, we have to
2:17 am
start with the only principle, and that is optimism, so we have to say that someone could. with some of those tools that we employ, and i think some would and some would not, but there is not a magic about it. we found in our state that people may not like the individual steps, but they did like the general policies, and they did like the outcome. >> it is often said that the american people are ideologically conservative but liberal and that they subscribe to this until there comes time for limiting government. did you find that in indiana? >> we found some of that. i remember mumbling under my breath more than once, people
2:18 am
say they want straight talk until they hear some, tough decisions until you make some, spending cuts until he makes some. i think it is very important not to sell the american people short. to me, is the most important thing we can bear in mind. this is a roomful of people to understand this. again, i would suggest -- sure, people will crumble. demagogues will do what demagogues will do. if you make it clear at every step, every step, that is average people and people who are on the lowest rungs of society, that is your first concern, and that is why we do what we do, and then if you
2:19 am
deliver results, you will not only survive but thrive. >> at the state level and including indiana, you have the advantage, as it were, of not being able to do three things that could be done at the federal level, and that is you can not print money, you cannot borrow promiscuously, and you do have a constitutional requirement that you more or less balanced the budget. washington, being able to borrow promiscuously and print money with no constitutional limits, how much does that complicates doing at the federal level what you did the state level? >> enormously, although it is only fair to note that a lot of our sister states have the expert at escaping or even in or wiggling their way around these otherwise wholesome and effective limits, and that was true in our case, too.
2:20 am
we had the balanced budget requirement. that did not keep them from spending seven consecutive years, running through the reserves, and then using a variety of gimmicks. you do not make deposits in the pension fund it on time. east of the various people view of, like schools and universities and localities and made them do the borrowing, in essence, while they wait for the check that you would otherwise send them, so these are structural limits on government, promiscuity, to use your word. i think very important but not always decisive. >> with your experience as a governor and watching your fellow governors, some kind of constitutional limit, and having seen this from the federal level, it is it your impression
2:21 am
that it would be a final point on it, constant lawlessness? >> i have always favored some constitutional restraint. i would prefer may be a super majority to go beyond some reasonable limits, but it is not a complete answer. if you had when tomorrow morning, you would still have to have exceptions that could always be expanded, and i guess in the current, i worry that there could be a diversion of something easier for people to wrestle with than the real challenges that we all know have to be grappled with, the safety net programs and so forth, and
2:22 am
my own preference i think at this moment would be to see if we can some on our fellow citizens to do what is necessary to square in the means over the long term, and then have a good healthy debate about how not to make it harder legislatively. >> when you were year in one of your earlier tours on federal government, no longer senators gramm, hollings, and another. it put in place a trigger that would be pulled ostensibly to require ceqa station or budget cuts. the trigger would either be disabled or ignored. it slowly faded away. what does that tell you about the institutional as opposed to what you are talking about
2:23 am
political restraints? >> my recollection stands to be correct. there is some value. there are some around these limits. >> speaking to a conservative audience in february, you said our federal government needs not just behavior modification but barry at tricks surgery. that sounds like institutional change. this reduces the amount of calories that get into the system. what is the equivalent here? >> well, it just may be clarified, maybe i should have said liposuction. the rhetoric at the time. current spending not to exclude
2:24 am
the idea, not to overspend. no, i mean, this is plain and arithmetic, as arithmetic ordinarily is, and in my opinion, we will need to not only transformed the safety net but also restore the federal government to something, some kind of affordable shape, and there is no shortage to go after that. >> christopher, who is watching these proceedings from afar, as the question, should this not be part of a sustainable percentage of gdp? how will that work in an aging
2:25 am
society, given that the welfare state is a transfer mechanism, transferring wealth to the elderly, and the elderly are igraine part of the population? >> he is an active citizen. >> he really is. i am going with the previous theory. first of all, i, for one, could be in favor of almost anything that really changes the long- term trajectory we are on. we do not want to exclude anything. i have not been particularly enamored of an arithmetic figure, even in statute, and you point out a good reason to be careful. we are going to be a different society than we ever have been.
2:26 am
we are committed to protecting people in their elderly years against destitution. yet financial are driven by a healthy bed, and therefore, i am not sure everyone knows about a magic percentage of anything that would be needed to do that. arguably, it will be higher for a while, and then maybe once again a somewhat younger society, it does not have to be that high. i could listen to almost any approach that we might get a majority for. i would not start by trying to have a percentage. >> if americans in their perversity art planning on living longer, as they seemed to do, seeing that a safety net is built into the cake? >> there is no reason that they
2:27 am
should be subsidized. for openers. we all, i would hope, would agree that since our desire to look after each other has run up against finite resources, we ought to concentrate them on those without which will suffer. >> when the business leaders come to you and say what can you do for the great state, go and make money? >> they recommended two things. >> tax reform, that would give us as if someone has decided on purpose, and could you do both
2:28 am
in indiana? >> we have structured almost everything we have done around the goal of raising disposable income of our citizens. really, the essence of american promise, but the government would have the means to do those things we ought to do collectively, and the problems would become more manageable, so we have reduced the cost of hiring people and making money on our state we have lowered those costs. fractional costs. we measure everything in our administration, such as how long it takes you to get a permit for something. time is money is not a figure of speech, we all know.
2:29 am
but this is what we have worked on. every single person knows that we are going to be looking at their performance based on how well they did ohrid did not contribute to that goal. >> since the tax code at the federal level was simplified, they were broadening the base, fewer exemptions and loopholes. since then, it has been complicated 16,000 times. is there a metabolic urge of some sort in washington or in our political system that makes it possible to have a tax code that looks as if we have done it on purpose? >> one could say, it will be a
2:30 am
mess. not just so they it natural growth, but the fact you have a lot of people running around planting. just to switch metaphors, the bigger the trough, the more -- the more you will attract. i am bemused by this. there is only one way, more of this pernicious influence. we all know the tax code is a source of a lot of that. >> a couple things. some optimism.
2:31 am
we have got plenty of reasons. this thing you just talked about, the tax preferences, the tax expenditures, some folks say, is a huge opportunity to do a couple of useful things. one is to cut revenue without hurting growth, and one daughter and others keep pointing out that this is just spending by another name. it could enable what i think we need which is a tax code with a motor, flatter rate, similar to what you're talking about. economists agree that this is the right general direction to head, and i think it is obvious to everyone in this room.
2:32 am
to restructure the entitlement programs and provide it surgery, it still would not suffice. this is the sigma qua non. this may be the place. >> so i gather you are not going to use the tax credit to buy a chevy bolten >> as a matter of principle, no. >> the tax credit, i prefer to purchase from private enterprise. >> the role of public employee unions at the state level so far, perhaps some day at the federal level, will become a big topic. their possible role in helping to solve the problems at the fiscal level. what has been your experience in
2:33 am
indiana? >> this has never been authorized in our state but has been put in with executive order, and what i think is important to say about this is that it was more important in our case for our fiscal situation than for anything direct, and the union said never really been able to bargain for wages or benefits, and it was not particularly as a source of the bankruptcy that we were wrestling with. employees were not extravagantly paid, and the benefits were not too far out of line, but the indirect costs, there -- the in the system, the inability to do the most basic things, that was
2:34 am
really paralyzing, so the ability to restructure, to consolidate, to outsource things that the private sector could do better for us, none of these things would be possible and finally, i always want to stress that, yes, it was a very major indispensable element in our moving from a position of bankruptcy. there was also a lot about the services. we measure everything, services in indiana are being delivered. it is going to be, i think, very essential that people take a
2:35 am
positive outlook. i always remind our folks at home that skepticism is very healthy and american, but contempt for all government is mistaken, and so, we have worked hard to say that we have a very solemn duty to perform what we can, and being free of the collective bargaining rules was indispensable. >> only for necessity when they have no other choice. hitler was warned about churchill, but they paid no attention until they got to the courts. there was a commission that reform social security, the checks not being able to go out.
2:36 am
what kind of necessity would it take? what catalyzing event but might cause the federal political system? >> we can see the kind of catastrophe that could happen. if the market decides our credit is not good anymore, but we would rather not get there. sometimes, these crises lead to 11th-hour actions by democracies, and sometimes they lead to something else. sometimes they lead to tyranny or some kind of authoritarian answer to a problem that democracy did not seem able to solve, so i think the people out of this tremendous assembly in this room is to rejoin the fellow citizens, many of whom, please, do not blame the american people for their apparent reluctance to deal with these things most have never
2:37 am
been told. no one has explained to them that the current system leads to a plundering of the next generation. and i honestly believe that we can and as a republic deal with these issues before the worst happens. >> governor, here tells us we are out of time. i will not close without saying that i know a lot of people in this room feel as i do that a lot has been triggered by your recent decision, and the lead person said if anyone would do would you have to do to be president should not be allowed to be president, and we respect as much as we regret your recent decision, but think you for coming here today. >> thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
2:38 am
>> good afternoon, everybody. i am delighted to be here. i think this says something about our great country, the issue that has everybody's attention, the budget. that is what we are spending all day long on. it is important, as everybody knows, and to introduce this next discussion, i think everyone is aware about trying to forge a consensus. there was the simpson bowls commission. you have heard from them earlier. they have reportedly been talking about all issues,
2:39 am
including spending of a nature. there has been a lot of speculation about what they have been doing. this has been remarkably good, i would say, from their perspective in terms of not talking to the press. this is a real testament to the gathering today, that they are prepared to come and talk to all of us right now, so, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator saxby chambliss, dick durbin, and mark warner. [applause] senators, thank you very much. as a reporter, we do not normally think people for keeping things as secret, but it
2:40 am
has been remarkable to the degree you have kept things under wraps, so i am going to start with you, because you and senator warner have been able to include this. we know that you had a fixed member and senator tom koran burn. -- tom coburn. today, one senator had to be on the floor of the senate because of the vote coming up at 5:00, but give us a sense as of today, where your discussions stand. >> well, what you have mentioned is exactly right about the fact that we could have six senators sit in a room for almost six months in this town, and the contents of the discussion might get out. that is the way it used to work,
2:41 am
and our goal was to make it work that way from day one, and they have been tremendous to work with. we have talked about a lot of sensitive issues, obviously, and this issue in and of itself was so complex that any time we reached mutual common ground on one issue, then something else would pop up, and that happened during the course of all of this, and at times, we became frustrated, but we came back together. senator cockburn made the decision last tuesday to exit the group and as he said, take a break. i am not giving up hope that tom is going to come back. ande're able to reach one, we have gotten close, and we are very hopeful. at the end of the day, senator cockburn is going to rejoin our group, but i cannot say when that is going to be. >> senator durban, you have been
2:42 am
a member of this group from the outset. how hard has it been for the six of you to sit there, three republicans and three democrats, to talk about these issues? >> we like one another, and that helps. we have a different point of view on some issues, and we have tried to work through them. it almost sounds like in legislative process, , and if we can do this, it will be a model. as the majority whip in the senate with 53 members meeting 60 votes, i can tell you it is a very difficult task in which we had bipartisan cooperation, but the congress between the house and the senate, it is obvious, as well. so it has been difficult on an issue basis, not difficult on a personal basis.
2:43 am
we shared a lot of popcorn. >> senator crapo, is everything on the table? is this the case? >> yes, everything is on the table. everything has to be on the table. that does not mean that we are not engaged in the difficult process of compromising what can deal on a comprehensive basis for the paradigm shift. in a way that can get 60 votes on the floor of the senate. they will be negotiated into a form that was different from what most people were looking for, but absolutely everything has to be on the table, and there was the earlier discussion about tax policy, and, frankly, i, for one, agreed that we need to have very significant tax
2:44 am
reform. we need to change the paradigm in america on whether to cut taxes and how that plays out. developing a tax code that will be more competitive globally for our businesses, would be more fair, less complex, less expensive to comply with, and that would be a huge part. >> i went to press a little bit more about what is on the table. one part of the party is implacably opposed to revenue increases. how is the dynamic in your group any different than that? >> this is reiterating what you all have talked about all day long. this is the most predictable financial crisis that we are approaching, and we had used
2:45 am
government tools already. we have used monetary policy and fiscal stimulus. we have shot those bullets already. this is "thelma and louise" and a car heading for the cliff. somebody needs to put the brake on. somebody needs to figure out how to not drive over the cliff. you can cut tax rates, and government spending by a different name. you can cut back on those, and actually maintain their productivity. there are equal ways on some of this stuff with the aging society with increasing medical
2:46 am
technology. the notion of how we make this and keep them in a fiscally sustainable way. we have just got to grapple with it. the deficit. the idea that it is on a sustainable path just is not true. dealing with the actuarial tables. i am a new guy. but the senators and coburn and conrad, we are discussing this
2:47 am
on an intellectual basis, and i still believe the terms of the comprehensive approach, this is the best possibility. >> senator chambliss, you said you are working off of the simpson bolas report. why not just a dog that as it is? >> putting it into legislative language, the fact is there were several options in that plan on different issues, and we have had to go through go and look at this about what we think is best, number one, and the next is about getting 60 votes. we can go through all of this exercise, and we can take all of these that we have taken for the last five months, and if we are just looking at getting 60
2:48 am
votes, then we have not gone anywhere. the overall concept is a very good concept to build on, and we have taken it and even improved in some areas, but -- one >> can you give us an example? >> no. [laughter] >> ways you can actually get it passed. >> some specific areas of the reform package, whether it is revenues, and we look get it as not increasing taxes but increasing revenues, and we're going to repay this 14 trillion debt. that 14 trillion dollars is still owed, so when we say we are continuing to work, that is why we are continuing to work, but any of those who think we are going to solve it by just cutting that part of the budget is not really thinking seriously about this.
2:49 am
as mike alluded to earlier. we have taken the plan, and we have expanded it, and we think we have made it better from the standpoint of the spending reduction, the standpoint of reforming entitlements as well as looking of the revenues, and while we are reducing tax rates a la ronald reagan, we are going to increase revenues a la ronald reagan. that is the exact same approach that was taken then, and we know it can work again. that has been a key ingredient that we have had to work through, and it does change this a little bit. >> is that closing loopholes? and what else? >> this finally opened a door
2:50 am
that should remain closed in most of the conversation. tax expenditures, 1.1 trillion dollars per year, loopholes, exclusions, you name it, $1.10 trillion. they also equals the total amount collected in personal income tax in america. it is a significant amount of money, and it is an appropriate exercise for members to sit down and make some judgments, are all of these things important for the future of america? and from my part of you, some of them are not. some of them are. but what simpson said is that if you eliminate all of them, if you eliminated the entire tax code and then took the $1.10 trillion and dedicated $180 billion per year and used it to change marginal tax rates, you
2:51 am
would have a dramatic decrease f americans. 40% or more in many instances, so here is the question. is it more important to you to have a marginal income-tax rate if you cannot have a complete mortgage interest deduction as you have today? i think it is an important policy question. reduced rates in a progressive manner, and at the end of the day, more economic growth dealing with things that frankly should have been gone a while ago. >> depending on what the outcome is. there are the various compromises that have to be made, and that is so critical. i come back to the point that
2:52 am
one of the most important powerful parts is the change in paradigm with regard to looking at revenue. as we have already heard, we will have a debate, and we will promote a debate with our activities about exactly where in the tax code should we make the adjustments, and how much should those adjustments be, and how well they work out, but the bottom line is we are committed to creating a tax cut that is flatter, broader, and has a much lower set of tax rates that will not result in the increase of taxes for american citizens and ultimately will generate a phenomenally more powerful economic engine that is critical, absolutely critical, to be one of the pieces to the solution to our problem. >> did i hear, senator warner, in the discussion in the last few minutes, then maybe the revenue side may be more
2:53 am
important than the economists cited? >> spending is a 20% of gdp, an all-time high. it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that delta cannot be continued, so you have got to have, we think, a tax cut that will be fair that would generate revenue, , and most of the times, they have generally been in that 19.5% range. had you can cut back on some of the time and programs, make them sustainable. they have been very aggressive in terms of taking care of those most in need, and we have made so much more progress than most
2:54 am
have the same, and on top of that, i think what we have also worked through or a least thought through is that there are a lot of ideas. how do you get it cut through the senate and signed >> one thing you have to remember, when we are talking about revenues, we are looking at reforming the tax code to make the corporate side much more competitive for around the world, and right now, with japan, what they have done recently, it has the highest tax rate than any industrialized country. that is not right. we can bring those rates to something that is meaningful and significant, and this will broaden the base by stimulating
2:55 am
the economy. the purpose, that has been ours also. >> the corporate revenues side? >> it is intended to be revenue neutral. >> senator, what about that? >> here is the way i see it. we have a nominal corporate income tax rate, and then we have the actual corporate income tax rate, and depending on that, if you were a small business, you are probably closer to the actual stated corporate income tax rates if you are a larger company, as we learned with general electric not too long ago, you may have a zero corporate tax rate, so the tax code towards certain aspects. i think what we're trying to achieve is we're trying to create an opportunity for economic growth by lowering the marginal corporate rate, doing
2:56 am
it in a fair fashion so of the end of the day, we do not give of the revenue that comes in from the corporate side. that is what we are wrestling with. i do not know if you want to get into it, but the entitlement discussion is important to all of us, and maybe there is the most to say in this group, about it. i really honestly believe there has to be a safety net in america. there are vulnerable people in this country because of the economy, because of their status, and there is more vulnerability today because of two things. the first of which is the disparity in income, where many people are working harder and falling further behind, and the second is the uncertainty of their future. savings to a hit not that many years ago. pensions fell by the wayside in bankruptcy proceedings, so when
2:57 am
people talk about this, it is not about dating back to franklin roosevelt, it is their safety net. i was here when we went through the bipartisan exercise in 1983 and extended social security. it was interesting, when it was done, clearly to save social security, it did not cost any party a seat in the next election. another remembers that. it really was not an issue. we did it for the good of social security. >> has this got more granular than that? you're still having philosophical discussions? >> obviously, you cannot have a conversation on this without getting philosophical, but we have gone beyond that. we know where did is coming
2:58 am
from. there is the argument there. tom coburn is probably on the other extreme, where he is coming from. we have been able to sit there and get beyond those philosophical arguments and say, ok, we know where you are, dick. we know where you are, tom. we have got to figure out some way to find the common ground, whether it is revenue policy or what. again, i go back to what i said initially. it is the way the senate was designed to work. i am very proud to be associated because it has worked. i want to say extremism in the pursuit. [applause] [laughter] >> senator, this is not to say that the democrats have not been
2:59 am
taking some heroes, a particular taking some errors on your side, before those who believe the taxes just should not happen, we think about the americans for tax reform, are you truly able to function, ignoring all of that common that opinion out there? that is making itself known to you on a regular basis? >> let me tell you. when we first voted for the fiscal commission report, it came out, and they have not gotten back in since. when you are seriously talking about reforming the entire fiscal paradigm of the united states of america at a time of fiscal crisis, like that that we face, we are talking about everything, literally, being on the table and being open for discussion, and the group sometimes i think like to create conflict. there are groups that like to
3:00 am
have an interest in the outcome of these phenomenally broad issues. i would say that this is a polite way to put it. the attacks had been on both sides. nevertheless, we can get past that, and, frankly, i think a lot of these groups are going to be pretty happy when they see the ultimate plan, because the fears that have are not as real as a product we are working on. with. the bottom line is that we have to continually remember that the status quo is also an option. it's not a good option, and in fact i think that it's probably the worst option of any of the options we have in front of us as a nation. but as americans understand that, then they become much more willing to engage in a serious kind of discussion we have had in this group that has helped find ideas and we think the downside of the box or working on the new paradigms' we can find ways to achieve the objectives we have across the
3:01 am
political spectrum in ways the will provide popular support and political support. >> i want to pursue that because there are folks out there saying it's great for the six of you or five of you to be working on this but in the real political world is going to be very difficult to turn what you doing to their real legislation. how do you look at that? >> look at some of the markers out there. 64 senators, a number of weeks back who said that's a boy, stay at it, and you guys. you'd be surprised the number of senators who view it as one in or the other whose it to everyone of us individually stay at this because what is the alternative? the alternative is a potential debt crisis without the tools the government has headed the past in terms of fiscal and monetary policy. interest rates of traditional levels that would take an economy that is slowly starting to recover but is recovering to
3:02 am
grind it to a halt at a time when you've got potential, a mother debt crisis in europe, and stability in the market, the notion that we would step up and try to put forward something that is transformative, the coalition government in the u.k. had a deeper problem, and the have stepped up. we have a different political system. i think there is an enormous sense as we found saxby and i have done a road share of this, you could have the groups that want to preserve the status quo in this town and americans want to do their part. they want to be for something as long as everybody has scanned in the game. a lot of plans they put out so far have been accurate or not trade is disproportionately one part of america versus another
3:03 am
part of america barry to much of the burden. the notion of what we are going to put out or get to is something every but people have scan in the game and like we will have the enormous amounts of folks stepped up. >> we do from day one this was going to be a difficult process in and of itself but even if we as a group of six were able to agree selling it to our colleagues is going to be even tougher. so we have not had any complicated feelings about that. it's always been understood that it was not going to be an easy sale and that's why it's been difficult and why it's been so difficult at the end because in the end negotiations with major issues are always once you kind of put off until the end, and that's kind of day where we are and that's why it got so difficult credit the end. >> coming to the end does that mean you're close to coming out with the report?
3:04 am
>> i ask because you've got the negotiations underway with the vice president biden and you were just telling me there is discussion come in a formal discussion about the groups. is that accurate? >> it's very informal. i kept john cline allows less mitch mcconnell priced to where we are, not the details necessarily that we're we are on the process of way through this it in the very first day we sat down together and started visiting on this. >> how was this track different from that track? >> we are not integrated with them at all other than the fact you get democrats and republicans sitting down at the table in the caribbean and obviously we are in our group with the of the focused on as directed by the president i think rightly so is the deficit and what is it going to take to get 60 votes to raise the debt ceiling? we've always been more focused on the longer-term issue because they are not going to solve the
3:05 am
14 trillion-dollar debt. i don't think that there is any way. that's what we have had our sights on from early on. >> how do you see your timetable? how do you see this on folding going forward? >> i feel all four of us would like to sit here today and tell you that come next week we are going to roll out this plea and everybody's going to be totally happy with but number one, we are not there and secondly, when we get to that point and we still hope we will, it's going to be a plan that everybody is going to dislike in some respects because all of america is going to have to share in the sacrifice if we are truly going to get this debt under control and address what mike mullen the chairman of the joint chiefs said is the number one of the security interest of our country, and that is to start paying down this debt is as referenced a minute ago spending
3:06 am
now. revenues down here. we've not only got to get it in balance, we've got to get revenue above spending so that we can start page that mortgage. if we don't do that, then we are not going to show the good faith in the marketplace of the people buy our bonds are going to require a share. so it's going to be a difficult process at best to convince folks and we are not there yet and we can't say that we are going to be their costs to be cut next week or the week after. >> senator durbin are you convinced -- i'm going to ask each of you, that you can sell the rest of the senate on what you have come up with? >> we don't know until we try, and at this point, i think we all say this with your concurrence from political parties not to quit because i feel people are seeing the alternative. they know what happens when we debated the continuing
3:07 am
resolution and came close to closing down they don't want us to quit. they may not agree on the particular is the understand that our process is the only hope of a bipartisan process people are getting on both sides trying to reach a common goal putting aside our own politics, democrats and republicans, trying to see what is good for the nation that is what the mission is all about. 11 of 18 moving koret of a bipartisan basis. that's a pretty good thing. we wouldn't be sitting here of the stage as likely without the good work they have done. i think there would be a gathering of delivering at some point, not sure when. i hope there would be. we will tell you when it comes to vice president biden even the president the have been encouraging to us without knowing the details in particular because they feel that we are going to add a
3:08 am
voice, a positive voice to the ultimate solution. >> the reason i'm questioning this, senator crapo, is we see the difficulty the converse had dealing with short term budget challenges. this one is far bigger than that over a long period of time and i just wondering where does your confidence come from? >> you asked the question where's the confidence but also the timetable. if you did about it i probably as my colleagues have been asked 100 times if i've been asked once why are you going to pick out a plan or when will you reach fidelity? and i keep saying we will reach finality when we get a deal and we are making progress in our truly doing something i haven't seen that in the united states senate for a long time and that is to sit down as republicans and democrats and try to bridge the differences between our parties and our politics and america's politics of the most
3:09 am
phenomenal the broadbased issues of our time. we are dealing with everything from social security to the entitlement system, medicare and medicaid to the spending structure on the discretionary side of the budget to however revenue system including defense and the mechanism to enforce that to stop congress from getting around it widget historic we does come and this we are trying to do on the basis that develops the partisanship so my answer to the question as to how we find the confidence to go forward is in the response we get from not only a work colleagues but people across the country. i said a minute ago the knives were out and they are. the special-interest groups across the country are ready to fight any proposal and they are geared up, but at the same time i can't tell you how many times every day i am contacted by people who say don't quit. don't quit because we are counting on you.
3:10 am
>> one other point senator coburn wrote in "the washington post" he talked of the work of the group but he said this ought to be done by the entire senate. could this work be done by the -- >> clearly if and when we get to that point, the entire senate this isn't going to happen if 60 plus say yes obviously whatever we put out we change, but we think that we have to make this -- one of the things we felt all along to do this sequentially and take this in bite size the force of the status quo will stop it. you have to fool the same so that everybody kind of at some point says i don't like that part but the son of a greater good as we are all going to to get there because my fear is that what came out of the potential government shut down which i was frankly embarrassed about was a growing lack of --
3:11 am
our growing institutions up to the challenge. so as important as the debt crisis is, there's also the fact we have to reaffirm our institutions can take on these big jobs and get something done, and the only way the idea that there is going to be a one-party solution is just plain wrong. and i think we will and do have that chance to be debt starting point and we are going to surprise a lot folks and need all of the folks that have been involved in the peterson institute and others who care about this issue to not hang back. you can't just come and be part of the audience and listen. we are going to need you to say to be out there urging and if a democrat who supports this year, republican to support a democrat because it's our future. the intimacy of the challenge is something we've got to step up and i think it's our job to at
3:12 am
least get that started and these guys have been the ones to start. >> in closing senator chambliss how do we know when you're about to announce something? you come to work with -- >> white smoke. [laughter] >> welcome you know, there is no timetable that we have. this wasn't we are going to get this done on the sea are or something of rolled out to have the vote by the time the debt ceiling vote takes place. our statement has consistently been we are going to roll this out when we get it right and that maybe next week i would hope senator coburn will join our group and the six of us will be able to root out sometime soon, but we don't know. >> that is a tantalizing answer. this is the first time all of the senators have come together, four of the five senators have come together to talk publicly. so we are especially appreciative. senator chambliss, senator warner, senator crapo, senator
3:14 am
3:15 am
there is a solution. get out of the afghanistan war. that is a war that we are not winning. we have to focus like a laser on terrorism wherever it happens to be. it is spreading throughout the world. we really need to focus -- host: would be the strategy for afghanistan? a lot of've moved troops and this summer. and not sit around and wait and wait until 2014. gates and others have said we are likely to be there for a decade. we are pouring into that the lives of americans and others around the world. don't continue to be a presence. we have to do social and economic aid and we will need to continue to work with the police and the armed forces there for
3:16 am
support and training. 100,000 troops on the ground is not winning that war. there is a place to start saving money. easy. a $100 billion right there. host: what about the big ticket items? are you willing to eliminate those types of programs? guest: i do not think "eliminate" is the right word. can we stretch that out? yes. much of the missile defense program, half a billion dollars that will be voted on today. that cannot be used this year or next year. it is a system that has to take longer to develop. it does not work right now. why spend a half a billion dollars on some of that will not work and is not needed right now? we can reduce, spread out, and make a different direction.
3:17 am
in is pretty clear that the wars of the near future are not going to be major land wars. but it is going to be a war against terrorists wherever they happen to be. we got osama bin laden with good intelligence and special operations and forces. host: "the washington post" says -- expect that price tag to be? guest: $700 billion or a few billion dollars more than that. almost all of that in afghanistan now. that is what i am saying. take afghanistan, changed the direction, use of the successful getting osama bin laden as a pivot point and get back to what we originally were doing, go
3:18 am
after the terrorists wherever they happen to be. this is an opportunity to get back to anti-terrorism. host: should that be the sole focus of the pentagon? guest: of course not. we have other things that we have to do. about 15% to 18% of our total defense budget is used to protect [unintelligible] for the world's economy. about $100 billion a year is used to protect the flow of oil out of the gulf every year. get on with the green, clean technologies, moved away from foreign oil. host: defense authorization bill heads to the floor this week.
3:19 am
part of that is expected to be a debate about libya. what do you think about a world power resolution? has president obama -- has the time run out on that 60 days? does the congress need to do something about our actions in libya? guest: absolutely. the constitution is quite clear about who is who can declare war. he needs to come to congress. he needs to come to the american people and explain what is all about and what the tactics are and what the endgame is. host: should we be in libya? guest: we are in libya. we are a part of nato and what is going on in that area. how long are we going to be there? that is what the president has to explain to congress. host: what is going to be the strategy in iraq?
3:20 am
guest: in the defense authorization bill there is a section that authorizes the use of american military force anywhere in the world there happens to be a terrorist. it basically is an unlimited authorization for the use of military power anywhere in the world against any nation in the world wherever there might be a terrorist. it is troublesome. it has to come out of this piece of legislation. it is an unlimited authority for the president to go to war. host: is it to go after terrorists wherever they may be? guest: and more. to go after any nationa. that is a big deal. i guess we can declare war on
3:21 am
ourselves. it is a very, very bad provision that was written into the defense authorization bill, basically unknown until very late at night when i happened to be thumbing through the thing. host: who put in? guest: i suppose the majority. not too many people are taking credit for it now. will it come out? the president has now said he would veto the bill if it stays in it. it has to come out. there is no way. host: we will now go to phone calls. sean is a democrat in texas. go ahead. caller: hi. my question is concerning all the money that we spent over there in iraq on terrorism. i guess what i want to say is that we need them forces on
3:22 am
terrorism. i do believe -- i am going into the u.s. army in a couple days. what about sending food to them? guest: first of all, congratulations and thank you for your service to your country when you do enter the military. the issue in afghanistan is more than 100,000 american troops on the ground what has become a civil war. that is what i am opposed to. i want to go after the terrorists wherever they happen to be. the u.s. military has been very successful in doing that. host: i want to show our viewers what president obama had to say during a news conference in london. this is what he had to say about afghanistan and libya. >> completing that transition by
3:23 am
2014. we discussed the opportunities to promote reconciliation and a settlement. president karzai has made it clear that he will talk to anyone who is willing to end the violence and accept the afghan constitution. we welcome the positive cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan on that front. at the same time, the prime minister and i both agree that our nations have a long-term interest in insuring that afghanistan never becomes a launching pad of attacks against our people. we are committed to a strong and enduring partnership with the people of afghanistan. as historic change unfolds across the middle east and north africa, we agree that the pursuit of self determination
3:24 am
must be driven by the peoples of the region and not imposed from the outside. host: congressman, what did you hear there from the president about strategy in afghanistan? guest: i did not hear the words that we are going to focus on terrorism. i did not hear him say that. i think underlying his words is that we are going after terrorism. obviously, we have a long-term interest in afghanistan, but that does not include 100,000 troops on the ground. they need to come home soon. i mean right now. we can bring home 50,000 troops this year in the next 12 months. that can be done. as we change the focus from one of going after the taliban and participating in the civil war and nation-building, change the
3:25 am
focus back to dealing with terrorists. we cannot deal with terrorists in pakistan. we do not need when hunt 2000 troops -- we do not need 100,000 troops in pakistan to deal with it. host: when you hear the president say that the united states and england as a long- term interest to stay in afghanistan, what was your reaction? guest: mr. president, what do you mean? does that mean an embassy that has a few marines hanging around? does that mean 25,000 troops heading around in afghanistan? what exactly does it mean? they are going to continue to have an american presence at some level. certainly, we are going to have to continue to do foreign aid
3:26 am
and support for afghanistan, but we do not need $120 billion a year to do that. host: what your thoughts about president karzai? . guest: his government is corrupt. not trustworthy. we need to be very, very careful. that negotiated settlement will have to include president karzai, and he is going to have to give. there must be a negotiated settlement. the president suggested that a moment ago. host: what does the taliban have to say in order to have a settlement? guest: the have to be pronounced and it has to be very clear to the taliban and to everybody else, that it to harbor terrorists, we are going to come and get them. we are going to take you out. we are going to go get the
3:27 am
terrorists and take them out. caller: what about what general petraeus said about u.s. support for israel against the palestinians being a threat to american troops? yesterday, we saw benjamin netanyahu get more standing ovations that president obama did. our support for israel is what got us attack -- host: james, we got your point. guest: i do not buy any of that. they had a lot of different reasons for doing so. none of them were valid. our support for israel is essential and necessary. i think you are wrong. host: where are we in resolving peace between israel and
3:28 am
palestine? guest: the president is quite correct, in that it will have to be decided between israel and palestine. the president was pushing the envelope. that is ok. let him push the envelope. somebody is going to have to push it. benjamin netanyahu was quite correct about negotiating with terrorists. that is now going to work. he is going to have to have a secure government to work with. host: we will go to a republican in texas. you are on the air. caller: iust wanted to say that you just have to leave it to the democrat administration and leadership in the house and senate to snatch defeat out of victory in of
3:29 am
afghanistan and pakistan and deplete the military budget and spend all of that on the other money so there is no money for the next president to reconstitute our military when our constitution calls for a military, not for a lot of the social spending and the stuff that democrats want to spend. guest: that is a very interesting colossally that i think the american public rejects. that military has to be used very wisely. in my view, it is not been used wisely in iraq. that was a war that president bush started unnecessarily. that war cost over $1 trillion and was paid for from money from china. that is where a good portion of the deficit has come from. that is the kind of thing that we have to avoid it.
3:30 am
as anybody who cares deeply about this country, do not ever get involved in the war did you do not have to get involved in. thousands of lives were lost. we do not ever want to do that again. host: an independent caller from baltimore. caller: i respectfully and thank you for the knowledge that you just shared with that middle of the country person who does not seem to understand. just in the sense of defending the border. there is a realistic duty of the government. the 11th amendment says to defend and promote the general welfare of the united states. that is the 11th amendment. for you, sir, i beg you to give me some understanding of why.
3:31 am
90% of her representatives refused to put revenue on the table. host: we will leave it there and get a response. guest: we are going to have to deal with the deficit. how did we get here? president clinton left his presidency with a surplus. if the same policies had been continued, which would have completely paid off the american debt. it did not happen. george w. bush came into office. two massive tax cuts were passed, most of the benefits went to the wealthier people in this country. two wars, neither of which were paid for, all borrowed money. add to that the medicare drug program that was also not paid for. finally, totally abandoning the regulation of wall street and
3:32 am
the housing market, the great collapse, and we wound up where we are today with an extraordinary deficit. it is going to take time. part of that is the reinstitution of taxes on the wealthy of this nation. host: welcome. caller: hi. in terms of afghanistan, i think our present there is a crucial for our national security because stability in that entire region is important for the world because of the oil. in terms of spending, here is where the money is. i had to go to the hospital about a year ago for an abdominal pain and i had to have an ultrasound. i spent five hours in the hospital. the bill was $1,900 for an ultrasound. and an examination from two
3:33 am
people. that is where the money is that is bankrupting this country. guest: first of all in regards to afghanistan, we do not need 100,000 troops there and $100 billion a year to deal with those issues. they are destabilizing pakistan. pakistan is the issue. afghanistan is a side issue. all of those things come into play. with regard to where the money is, you are quite correct about the medical system in the united states. it is an ever-growing part of the american academy and does consumer an increasing share of the gdp of this nation and it needs to be dealt with. unfortunately, the republicans the medicareinated the la program which happens to be an
3:34 am
extremely efficient, effective medical system that works very, very well. the republicans are determined to terminate it. i will tell you this there is no way the democrats are going to allow medicare to be terminated. medical expenses for the system have to be brought under control. in the affordable health care act, there are numerous provisions that will bring down the cost of medical care across this nation for everybody, both medicare as well as for the general public including people like you. host: wendy is on the republican line from florida. caller: i like your ideas. i voted for mccain because i am loyal to mccain. i heard years ago the reason why they attacked us because we had bases in saudi arabia. also, the other question i
3:35 am
wanted to ask you is our ex- military -- why can we bring the troops home and worry about the united states of america? these people who say we should go over there -- what will they put on a uniform and find out with a sacrifice is. guest: many, many reasons why al-qaeda exists t. all of those reasons are absolutely correct. they have a rationale that has an attraction to certain people are around the world and in the united states. we need to deal with those reasons why people would find a kid and terrorism mantra and story to be attractive. one of them happens to be that we have foreign troops occupying afghanistan and iraq for that matter.
3:36 am
that is not a reason to get out. the reason to get out is not working. let's get on with moving most of our troops out of afghanistan and do it in a big. and get on with dealing with the terrorists. part of that solution has to be that american values afterbeat once again top of the agenda -- the values of democracy, and open society, tritoma's speech and religion and tolerance. those are the values that need to be there, not the value of extraordinary strength being displayed on the ground in afghanistan through the military. host: 15 minutes left with the congressmen. said louis, missouri caller: you mentioned it the and funded amount to cover the iraq war, plus afghanistan. why can we not raise taxes to cover those wars? it is not too late to do that.
3:37 am
guest: very simply put, the republicans absolutely refuse to let that happen, and they control the house of representatives at this moment. certainly we ought to reinstitute the higher tax rate for the super-wealthy in this nation. they need to pay their fair share. as to corporations across this nation. and we need to end those kinds of subsidies that are just not necessary. the oil industry, the most successful industry added world, does not need your tax money as a subsidy, nor my tax money as a subsidy. yet they are receiving billions of dollars every year of tax assistance, subsidies, your tax money being used to help the oil industry. , on, it makes no sense at all. finally, what republicans are suggesting is that to solve the budget deficit, we cut medicare, that we go to the elderly, the aged, blind, the disabled in this nation, take money out of their pocket while giving the very same money to the oil
3:38 am
industry. it is nonsense, it is terrible lipolysis, but yet that is what republicans are suggesting -- terrible public policy, but yet that is what republicans are suggesting we do. democrats will do everything we can to see that that does not happen. we will not allow medicare to be cut, and simultaneously for the oil companies to receive tax deductions and benefits and subsidies. host: use it on the natural resources committee. they argue that we paid a fair share, a lot of money, millions of dollars every single day in royalties and fees, etc. guest: that's nonsense. in the deep water of the gulf, the oil industry pays zero royalties. they don't pay a royalty at all much of the drilling in the super deep waters of mexico. it is an abomination. they should stop. they should at least by royalty and their fair share of taxes. why in the world would you ever need the oil company -- in the
3:39 am
last half the kids, they have had $1 trillion of after-tax profits -- that last half decade, they've had $1 trillion after -tax profits. no way, no how. but that is what is happening. host: let me go back to medicare. republicans are saying you've got to deal with medicare and it is a huge program, a huge but our deficit. is it off the table? guest: cuts in medicare off the table -- host: how to tackle the deficit? guest: not that way. medicare is a very efficient program. what you have to do is deal with the overarching problem of medical services in the united states, which is growing. medicare is not causing. medicare happens to be one of the brakes on it because medicare is efficient. the health insurance industry is extraordinarily inefficient. i was the insurance commissioner
3:40 am
in california for eight years, and i know the health insurance industry. is extraordinarily inefficient. there are thousands upon thousands of policies out there. it created an administrative morass, chaos, the costs about 30% of every health care dollar and 85 health insurance system simply used -- in the private health insurance system is simply used for administrative costs. no country in the world would tolerate those kinds of administrative costs, and yet we do. we need evidence-based, clinically proven at madison and every level. in light of the medical services are not that way. there is -- a lot of the medical services are not that way. there is fraud out there. the republican administration in the decade of the 2000's -- guess what happened? it went through the roof. in the health care reform act, there was money for the irs to go after medicare fraud. the vendor first thing the
3:41 am
republican congress did when they came in in january -- very first thing the republican congress did when they came in i degenerate was produced the money to fight fraud. hello? what are you guys doing? it is a problem. that is not the nature of medicare, no reason whatsoever to terminate medicare, which is precisely what the republicans intend to do. host: before. host: all right, and joe, independent in missouri. caller: so far, i greet with about 100% of what you've said this month -- i agree with about one outer% of what you said this morning. host: ahead of my wife. caller: all throughout the country of iraq, several years now -- my question is, there were three young people who were caught by iran that said that they went over the border there.
3:42 am
in a time of war fought all over iraq, how do people get a visa to go to the work country, a country engaged in war, and just hiking around the country? how can they do that? at a time of war, and they say, oh, we were just out for a sunday stroll. guest: well, that is a good question. i don't know the answer to that question. i have no idea how or why they were there. apparently they were hiking in an area that is a very beautiful, mountainous area of iraq. what happened to their? it is clear that iran might possibly did reach across the board and granted them. the question is whether they were on the iran or iraq side of the border. in any case, iran or to send those two are many kids back to the united states. -- iran ought to send those two
3:43 am
are many kids back to the united states. there is no way they are spies. that is just foolishness. iran is a major problem we ought to be focusing on, creating trouble not only in iraq and afghanistan, but also rapidly moving towards building a nuclear weapon, which is extraordinarily destabilizing in that area. iran is a major, major challenge, and one that we have to address very toughly. host: "the new york times" had this headline. "defense secretary gates on tuesday said that if some american troops remained in iraq beyond the scheduled withdrawal of united states forces by the end of this year, it would be reassuring to persian gulf countries, but not to iran." guest: no doubt that prior to in 2002,ion of iraq iraq was one of the major
3:44 am
talapoins to the power of -- major counter points to the power of iran them to one of the major effects of george w. bush's invasion of iraq was the empowerment of iran, increase the power and influence of iran. as far as keeping troops in iraq, it is a major question, one in which the iraq government is going to have to deal with it. we must be very careful not maintain any significant number of troops in iraq, -- and, up we must be very careful about maintaining any significant number of troops in iraq. host: this is the headline in "the washington post." "u.s. imposes sanctions on seven firms linked to iran at." what does the defense authorization bill say on the issue of iran? guest: iran must have a tougher sanctions. we cannot allow iran to get a nuclear weapon. the united states to come out any hard on any company that continues to do business in
3:45 am
iran, and we need to ratchet up the pressure on. there is a bill in the legislature right now in congress to increase the sanctions to ratchet up the pressure on iran. that has to be done. iran cannot be allowed to have any clear weapon. host: not part of the defense authorization bill? guest: it is a separate legislation. host: randy, you are on. caller: you have a lot of tears when you sit there and lie about medicare -- lot of nerves when you sit there and lie about medicare. you don't want to talk about that, do you? guest: i do want -- to talk want -- i do want to talk about that -- caller: nobody will take it anymore. you democrats are lying every day. it is disgusting. guest: $500 million was a subsidy to help insurance
3:46 am
companies, and unnecessary subsidy for the additional services that the insurance companies were providing. there was simply additional, unnecessary profit for the health insurance companies, and was eliminated and put back into other programs for health care. that happens to be the fact. if you think the health insurance companies need an additional and necessary profit, well, then, you did exactly what the republicans did and vote against it. wrong policy, unnecessary $500 million a year to the health insurance companies. it was removed, and it was not a cut to the medicare program. not one medicare benefit was cut as a result of the affordable health care. however, the republican budget that passed the house with no democratic votes terminates at medicare for every american that is not yet 55 years of age.
3:47 am
if you are 54, had 60 days old, are 54 and a threatu to 60 days old, he will not see medicare any point in your life. -- it will host: this is a premium 8 -- they say it is a premium support system -- guest: it is a termination of medicare, which guarantees a health benefit to everyone 65 years of age and older in the united states. guaranteed medical insurance program. what republicans are doing is terminating medicare and giving you $6,000 a year and telling you to go buy insurance on your own. go to the private health insurance -- host: might that bring down costs of health care? guest: no, it has nothing to do with bringing down the cost whatsoever. basically reducing the cost to
3:48 am
the government, shifting the cost to the individual. if you are less than 55 years of age today, in order to make up the difference you have to set aside $1,313 every month for the next 10 years so that when you become 65, you can afford to buy health insurance policy. that is what this is all about. is about shifting the cost --it is about shifting the cost from the very wealthy, maintaining the tax cuts for the very wealthy and the oil companies, shifting the costs to seniors. right now $1,300 a month you'd need to set aside. if the republicans become successful in terminating medicare. host: david, jacksonville, florida, democratic caller. caller: i am a 53-year-old democrat and have always been a
3:49 am
democrat, but with what is going on with the extension of the six-day period and the war powers act, i really may have a problem voting for president obama again. having said that, with regards to medicare, my question is what would republicans do it if you have a bill on the floor stating that americans would get the exact same medical coverage as they do? what are they pass that? -- would they pass that? they say, it is like what we get -- guest: actually, on the house floor we had a chance to vote for an amendment that would require that the general public that the exact same policy that the members of congress get rid the republicans voted against that. -- the exact same policy that the members of congress get. the republicans voted against. they are playing a game here, a very bad game for the american public. the termination of medicare. i'm sorry -- you are 53 years of
3:50 am
age? you can kiss medicare could buy if republicans get their way. they will throw you to the sharks, the private health insurance companies, and most everybody who is 65 years of age has a pre-existing condition. away, republicans voted to repeal the protections -- by the way, republicans voted to repeal the protections to protect you from the insurance companies who discriminate based on health status, age, sex, on and on and on. all of those very important protections that you and i and every american have as a result of the affordable health care act would be terminated if the republicans had their way, and then when you become 65, good luck. you are thrown into the sharks, the private health insurance companies. you will be out of luck and you will pay a massive amount of money, if you can get insurance at all. host: the associated press reporting this morning that defense officials said a marine
3:51 am
general james cartwright is no longer in the running to be the next chair of the joint chiefs of staff. he had been considered a top candidate. what is your reaction? guest: first i have heard about it. i don't have a reaction. i will get back to my office and figure out what is all about. host: do you know general, right? guest: i do as a witness to the committee. i don't know him personally. host: mary, you are on. caller: i just wanted to say that everywhere we have ever been in was -- [unintelligible] as far as medicare goes -- no doctors in our area to take medicare or medicaid any more. .'m a disabled nurse i've been a nurse for 30 years. i have an advantage plan. if i did not have the advantage
3:52 am
plan with my medicate, i would not make it. i am in the hospitals every six months. guest: i'm not exactly sure what to personal circumstances are, what the doctors are in your area. we do know that the medicaid program which to depend upon would be very significantly reduced by the republican budget. huge, nearly $1 trillion in cuts in medicaid program immediately -- excuse me, over $700 billion of cuts in the medicaid program. that is going to dramatically affect your ability to get medicaid services. as to whether doctors in your area take medicare or medicaid, they are two different programs and i just don't know. by and large, most doctors take medicare. medicaid often is estate program, and this is a problem in california -- medicaid is
5:00 am
5:01 am
didn't indicate which shift or which day in the 221 rotation. with better attention, we feel from management and a better list of questions to begin with, that will yield better data. better data with proper analysis will yield better corrective actions. >> thank you. chairman rockefeller? >> thank you, madam chair. mr. rinaldi, i think it is only fair that you get to talk. let me ask you a couple of questions. number one, this has not been answered. i'm not sure of the answer myself. please tell me that an air traffic control person cannot hold two jobs during the course of the day. >> it is not prohibited and under the proposed work rules many of the new air traffic controllers were holding down two and three jobs to make ends meet because of the cut in pay.
5:02 am
i applaud the administrator and the secretary of transportation to put focus on getting us back to a fair trade bargaining agreement. >> you said two and sometimes three? >> from 2006 to 2009 to make ends meet. >> that's stunning to me because i think that dr. blenski can do all the magic he wants and not overcome that one. that is an enormous statement. to me, that is like asking for trouble. your response would be -- >> well, they don't have any choice. they have to make a living and they have got mouths to feed. that's where we again get into the budget not affecting this. safety comes first. well, the budget is going to affect pay increases or non-pay
5:03 am
increases. just like not having nextgen makes people's lives much more complicated, on the other hand it makes it much better because they can see farther out and have much more accurate spacing readings. how can this happen? has this just always been the case? how do you make the case this doesn't cause sleeplessness or bad judgment? >> actually interest the years of 2006 to 2007 we were talking exactly about fatigue in the environment. that was one of our biggest reasons to get back to the table and get a fair collective bargaining agreement because we saw the new hires coming in with a 30% reduction in pay and living in these high cost of living areas not being able to
5:04 am
make ends meet. they were waiting tables, doing what they can. >> can these two things co-exist side by side and have us talk about maximizing safety? >> they can but in a rather round about way. performance is dependent on sleep in 24 hours. total some sleep. however you split it. if total sleep in 24 hours is ok, then you probably are not so concerned about commute time or second jobs. it is when it cuts into the sleep. there are ways of directly measuring with activity monitors that you could actually track people's sleep-wake history over days, weeks, months. if that was ok, again, that would probably be all right.
5:05 am
>> with all due respect, you're talking -- from a lab point of view. >> absolutely. >> in the real world of being in a control tower, people are not going to divide up their sleep very well. i wouldn't think. maybe i'm wrong. maybe both randy and director babbitt and mr. rinaldi can comment on that. i think this is a very big issue. >> fatigue is real, as i said in my opening statement. we have been wanting to address this for many years. i applaud the administration for putting a task force together to address it. we have come one 12 recommendations. we believe all 12 of these recommendations will help mitigate fatigue in the work environment and i said the new collective bargaining agreement is there and it has gotten us
5:06 am
back to the 2006 pay which has taken some of the stress off the new air traffic crorlse that don't have to have maybe two or three jobs anymore. we are not there yet. we are getting there. the 12 recommendations that are built on science, the f.a.a. says really is a conglomeration built on science saying this will help fatigue in the work environment. that is one of the things that we're really pushing for. >> work to be done. thank you. >> do you a second round of questioning? >> a couple of things, madam chairman. mr. babbitt, hank krakowski accepted responsibility and resigned. that is a critical position obviously at the f.a.a. how long before you find a replacement and what is the type of skill-set that you are
5:07 am
looking for? >> yes, it was unfortunate mr. krakowski was a professional. i have known him for a long time. he had an excellent background and reputation. we are starting the process now. sometimes some of the folks you would like to have might not be as interested in taking the job as we might want them to be. certainly that is job that requires a lot of operational experience. this network is not unlike a large logistics network. just operation itself. you have over 500 facilities manned with people. the vast majority of them on 24-hour schedules. they have unique skills. they have to be trained. the operational side of it introduction to this system is new techniques coming with nextgen, new procedures, how do
5:08 am
we maximize those and piratize those? we have right now -- prioritize those? we have a new set of priorities. the chief council to the f.a.a., david is a seasoned professional. 24 years at continental airlines. he has a lot of experience in big operations. he is familiar with networks and i think he is doing a terrific job but that is -- he would rather go back to being chief council i believe than the c.o.o. he is doing a good job in the interim. my hope would be in the next few months. it is hard to say when you're trying to recruit someone. >> account sblet important. one individual not solely responsible for these incidents. have you made any other
5:09 am
personnel changes throughout the rest of the management workforce? >> yes, sir, we have. we have undertaken, some of them pretty dramatic management changes. we have about 10 different areas where we have taken the leadership. in some cases people thought it would be better to move on and do something else. we clearly had some cultural changes to make. one of the reasons paul and i were on the call to action, was clearly to reinforce professionalism. senator rockefeller mentioned we can't regulate it. i can't regulate professionalism. i wish i could but you can't. the vast majority of the air traffic controllers are very proud of what they do. they have great respect for what they do and we called upon them to help mentor people. sometimes you see someone doing something less than professional, speak up. it is your profession. we have really carried that
5:10 am
message to them. they need to be helping us police the professionalism. someone can have 16 hours of rest in terms of what dr. belenky thinks is rest but they played 36 holes of golf that afternoon. that is not professional. i don't care how much sleep you had, if you didn't use that sleep wisely and take advantage of it, these are things that we are addressing. some of the stuff you can't do top down. you have to have it from the bottom up. they are inspired to do it. it is a proud profession. they are no happier about this blemish than anybody. >> let me ask you a general question too. you have implemented the nine-hour rest period. i think they had recommended 10 between evening and day shifts only.
5:11 am
maybe why the recommendations were closen, is that satisfactory? does that -- closen, is that satisfactory? do you feel it would be most effective in mitigating fatigue? >> one of the 12 recommendations was the nine-hour break between the evening shift and going the quick turn day shift, that was backed with science and said that would give us an extra hour of sleep in our sleep banks so to speak as we were rotating through our shifts. the extra hour between -- the extra hour teen the day shift and the midnight -- between the day shift and the midnight shift, because you're starting later, midnight to 6:00 a.m., when your rhythms are expecting
5:12 am
you to sleep, we don't support it. we're working with the administration. if science supports mitigating the fatigue, we're 100% onboard. if 10 is better than nine, right now it shows that nine has the most benefit in between shifts than 10 hours. if nine hours are supported from a day shift to a night shift with science, right now it actually shows opposite because you're starting your midnight shift in an area where you're working more hours in a dangerous period. >> i agree with mr. rinaldi. tds a very tricky issue. it depends critically on the timing of the sleep opportunity. if you place the sleep opportunity that mr. rinaldi indicated in the mid to late evening, that is the forbidden zone for sleep. your body temperature is rising. all of your systems are telling you to stay awake and be alert,
5:13 am
it is very difficult to sleep during that period. nine hours from 3:00 in the afternoon is not going to help very much. it is not going to be a usable sleep opportunity. in contrast, nine hours from midnight to 9:00 a.m. you'll sleep well and capitalize on that sleep opportunity. it is not just the duration of the opportunity but key is placement with respect to the rhythm. >> you refer to our recommendation which dates back to 2009. at that time we recommended 10 hours between shifts and it was our understanding that at that time the f.a.a. was about to change its internal order to specify 10 hours opposed to eight-hour shifts. we endorsed that change. since then, mr. babbitt and mr.
5:14 am
rinaldi have referred to the work group that has recommended a move to nine hours. look, we're not wedded to 10 hours. we would gladly defer to medical science on this question but we they the agency would be well served as well to be guided by the science when it comes to naps or rest during a controller's work shift as well. it will be cold comfort for the family of an aircraft accident if it is determined that it was due to controller error and that the controller was fatigued at the time and has been deprived of opportunities for naps or for rest. >> thank you. >> senator lautenberg? do you have another question? >> my opening statement -- in
5:15 am
the record and i want to ask mr. babbitt a question. 2006, the former f.a.a. administrator informed me that air traffic control needed at least 35 controllers to move traffic safely. crop whether that was intended to be full performance people but right now there are only 26 certified controllers. many in the tower with eight trainees. when does f.a.a. plan to address the need to keep our towers fully staffed with certified controllers? >> i'm not sure. i don't have the numbers available to me but my understanding today is the range. we do, in fact, try to staff the traffic. traffic flows change sometimes and therefore you might want to
5:16 am
increase traffic or sometimes you might have the opportunity, traffic falls off someplace. recently in cincinnati, a merger forced traffic to another area. traffic in another city went down dramatically. specifically, my understanding today and i could get you the absolute staffing numbers that we have but we think we have a floor of around 28 and a ceiling of around 38 >> liberty is a complex airport with a high volume of flights. what have we got to do to provide the numbers that we need , on my understanding 75% of the trainees don't make it through the program. so when you have a dropout rate
5:17 am
like that, an incomplete rate like that, what do we do to get newark up to date? >> i think i made an earlier observation that we had a difficulty with the previous agreement, the collective bargaining agreement with the air traffic controllers. we were unable to attract seasoned controllers. that has changed and the numbers that you're looking at, those are old numbers. we have had dramatic improvements since then. now if we needed to fill spots, for example, newark, we would be able to advertise that and someone might -- a seasoned controller might come from a smaller facility and very easily upgrade into it a posed to a new-hire. it was unfortunate. we cured that today. >> do we still have the increased salary for high cost areas?
5:18 am
>> yes. >> is that still in place? >> yes, sir. >> if someone shifts from another less busy airport to become a -- fully trained controller at newark, that means they automatically will get an increase in their sal ray? -- salary. >> well, if they had come from la guardia, probably not. within the metropolitan area, it would be probably the same. i would have to look. r >> mr. rinaldi, the house republicans have threatened to cut back f.a.a. funds to 2008 levels. what impact would these proposed cuts have on our ability to hire and fully train new air traffic controllers? >> that would be a big concern of ours to go back to 2008 levels for the obvious reasons that as mr. babbitt said, from 2006 to 2009, we lost somewhere
5:19 am
between 4,000 and 5,000 air traffic crorlse and in the last five-year period they hired somewhere over 5,000 air traffic crorlse. training puts a lot of stress on the program. a lot of our facilities are above the 25% optimal trainee to c.p.c. control level. if we went back to 2008 levels and we looked at -- continuing to hire -- the fear that we have, currently about 4,000 are ready to retire or are eligible to retire and they will be retiring soon. we have not caught up from the first wave of retirement that we experience from 2006 to 2009. >> thanks to all of these people who do a terrific job and their team who is do a terrific job
5:20 am
but we're going to hound you to death to make it even better. thanks very much. >> senator warner? >> r- >> thank you, madam for holding this hearing. i think we were surprised by the -- i'm glad tods that you have been working together. this was not an area that i had a lot of knowledge about but i'll remember a meeting i had with mr. rinaldi in twen. i don't think in all of my time in public service has more of a frightening session, kind of getting air traffic control 101 in terms of the potentialway wave of retirees, the challenges of attracting new folks. the ability to get through training periods. the ability to track people to stay in this profession. the antiquated equipment and the
5:21 am
need to move to nextgen. i think you all do a good job. we need to constantly be vigilant. i guess i would ask you first if there is anything else. the remarkable thing is a lot of the things he said in twevb have all kind of come to pass and i don't think a lot of our folks around the country would know how close to edge. a whole lot of new people were hired. they had run through their cycle. you missed the first round of questions in your first round of testimony. hopefully not anymore. predictions that -- similar to what you make in 2007. >> thank you, senator. unfortunately i think that there is a lag in the system. i didn't mean to this my opening
5:22 am
statement to say that we're not concerned about operational errors. we certainly are. what i was trying to refer to was from 2006 to 2009 and years before that, there was a culture within the f.a.a.'s cover o it up, hide it. management incentives were tied to it. we were not getting the information to address the safety concerns in the system. that's why i applaud the administration for butt putting a just culture in place to address it. unfortunately i think we're going to see an increase in operational errors. better reporting, open reporting. we're going to start to really see where there are possible implications of safety in the system. i look forward to working with the administrator and working with all of you to say yes, we have a concern here. we need to address it. as operations grow, as fatigue
5:23 am
is a real problem in our work environment and we look forward to implementing those recommendations to mitigate as much as possible, i don't know if you can ever eliminate fatigue. you can certainly try to mitigate it to the point where skills are not impaired. that's really where we look to -- we're embarrassed by what has happened. we're proud professionals. we don't like any of the nonsense that is going on and we want to make sure it never happens again. i think the first positive step is to address these small recommendations and to address the safety concerns. >> you both feel we have now the transparency and the training processes in place to make sure we don't have this kind of cliff effective retirement we have run into these last two years. >> no, senator, we have now --
5:24 am
the retirement rate is half of what it was three years ago. any corporation, business, you know, with a -- that has been in business long enough, it gets to the point where you have got retirements at 5%, 6%, 7%. that's as it should be. we can train to that without any problem and not overburden the system. we were overburdened. no question. we were training twice that number of controllers. when you put 30% and 40% trainee into a facility, who trains them? the other controllers train them. it is a big burden on everyone. we're now comfortable in the 25% range. >> i appreciate the collaboration you are going to work on and again, mr. rinaldi, i just wish all of those things you said, the rest of them don't all come true.
5:25 am
this is growing to come a little bit out of left field. you may not have the answer but you can get back to me. one of the things is getting additional spectrum out into the marketplace. a number of years back, there was an award made to a company, a broadband competitor. there were certain questions about interference with existing g.p.s. systems. some of these concerns seem to have been raised now five or six years after the grants have been made and nobody likes to give up spectrum but some of the knowledge, folks i've talked to says there are ways we can make sure there is another viable broadband competitor out there and still make sure that there is appropriate g.p.s. protection for -- appropriate nextgen
5:26 am
g.p.s. services are used and they are not going to have interference. i hope as the f.c.c. moves through this process you will participate and not just say ok, you have this spectrum for six years. now all of a sudden, there is potential interference here. >> we're actively engaged working through traffic to find a solution there. one of the problems of course was the original intent of where it was to use the satellite signals. back in november we began to come up with the idea that they could enhance the signal. very powerful literally 100 types more powerful in the original forecast from space. it would be not without consequence. the technical solution, remember, we would have to design the equipment to filter
5:27 am
the interference. reinstall it. there are consequences to putting new equipment in airplanes. to do that would probably be in the five-year at best range. and then you're talking about equipping airplanes that have been designed now for the last 15 years to accommodate absb where the airline takes its position and broadcasts that. we have about 5,000 commercial airplanes that use that equipment today and about 140,000 jn aviation airplanes. >> i would like to see and my understanding is the f.c.c. is going to come out with what some of those costs will be. >> certainly with will. >> i just want to again thank you both. >> senator klobuchar? >> i apologize for being late.
5:28 am
i was chairing a judiciary hearing. now i'm in the unenviable position of being last. i first wanted to thank all of you. i was especially impressed by your comments and exchange with senator warner mr. rinaldi about the pride in your profession and how these recent events have been so disappointing and the work that has been done fix it. many people through major hubs like minneapolis-st. paul international airport. we know that our accident rates has gone down over the years. we have some air traffic crorlse falling asleep. fatigue and sleep deprivation among air traffic controllers is a serious issue. i appreciate the chairwoman for having this issue and taking this on. mr. babbitt, the f.a.a. has
5:29 am
recognized the issue of fatigue and the new staffing guidelines requiring two controllers in towers and nine-hour windows between shifts. are you able to quantify it on operational errors and run ways since they were implemented or is it too early. >> it is probably a little bit too early. we haven't seen -- part of the problem is these tower or whatever the facilities were, 27 hours that had single person manning -- the reason they had such low staffing, very little traffic operations at those hours. we would not expect there to be much in the way of operational errors. but it is too early to tell. >> i know there were a spade of reports within one time period about people falling asleep but there seems like there hasn't been in the last month or two since secretary lahood and
5:30 am
others came out, do you have information on that? >> we instituted a number of changes. you missed our review. >> i know the changes. i just wondered if you had reports of others falling asleep? >> i called for a top to bottom review and we found some that happened earlier. now i'm sure if i go back further i'll find more. we did find two that happened in january. both instances of people either observed with their eyes closed or observed sleeping. neither of these were good. one in los angeles and one in fort worth. we were just adding that to the statistics. >> when you visited me last week, we talked about this but the rest period between shifts and double staffing may require additional air traffic controllers. does the f. africa a. know how
5:31 am
these -- does the f.a.a. know how these policies could affect the totals? >> we're also looking at where the controllers -- there are ways that we could, for example, provide the same effective result having two people together in a tower as an example. we often have -- where we have facilities in a radar facility downstairs and someone upstairs alone. we could put a counsel upstairs and let the person work radar. they can work the facility. there are two people at no cost other than the one-time installation. >> they would be doing the same work they were knowing a different location. we'll just put them in the same spot thus saving us the extra person. >> and then one last person.
5:32 am
a set of 12 recommendations that if implemented would mitigate the issue of fatigue among traffic controllers. you know the status for review for this proposal. are there other recommendations beyond double staffing during night shifts and longer breaks dean with shifts that could be implemented? >> there is a number and we have already implemented several of the pieces. it came right out of the fatigue study. we're in discussions right now. we have a resue and we'll see what makes the most sense. we had some human factors folks and people who introduced medical science to help us better understand fatigue and better understand how to mitigate it. all of those are going to be in review.
5:33 am
if we need to increase shifts or do other things like that. 3 we're going forward on this. >> ok. thank you. anyone want to add anything? mr. rinaldi? >> thank you. the toll recommendations, they are a good start but they will have to be implemented and tested to see if we actually reach the goals. there might have to be more. the scientists and the workforce will continue to work together to see if we need more time in between shifts or whatever might happen and actually test controls, wristbands and see exactly what if we're really addressing the fatigue. more importantly, the education factor about fatigue. we have about 5,000 new air traffic controllers under the age of 30-something that quite frankly when we were all 30, we all thought we were invincible.
5:34 am
we all were in college. we pulled all-nighters and did our tests. we need to make sure we address fatigue and identify it and make sure we have proper clearance to sleep and we use that to sleep and rest. >> very good. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. i think that wraps up our hearing. training and the percentage of trainees that are acceptable and changes in scheduling and getting more details on the operational errors and the meaning of those operational errors and this committee is going to play an active role on oversight on all of those issues. we're not ruling out a legislative path either. we're going to continue to be diligent until we feel we have improved the safety and continue to implement those safety recommendations. so thank you all very much for
5:35 am
5:36 am
has been nominated to be the u.s. ambassador to china. today he testified at his senate confirmation hearing. you can watch live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span 3 and c-span.org. >> over the three-day memorial day weekend commencement addresses from across the country. leaders from politics, business and entertainment all offering their advice and insights to the graduating class. memorial day weekend on c-span. >> you're watching c-span bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal" our live call-in program telling you the news of the day. weekdays watch live coverage of the u.s. house and weeknights congressional hearings and policy forums and also supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends you can see our signature interview programs.
5:37 am
on saturday, "the communicators." sunday "q & a." you can also watch our programming at any time at c-span.org and it is all searchable at our c-span video library. created by america's cable companies. >> tim pawlenty was at the cato institute yesterday. he talked about ending cost of living adjustments for wealthier americans. >> good afternoon. i'm ed crane, president of the cato institute and i would like
5:38 am
to welcome you to our forum. today with former minnesota governor tim pawlenty. i should note that over the years crmp ato has had good relations with several prominent minnesotaians including jean mccarthy, the former senator. and tim still works on those things so we're glad to have yet another minnesotaian with us. the governor is here to speak about fiscal policy and specifically how we can get federal spending, which is out of control, under control. the following -- following his
5:39 am
comments, governor pawlenty has agreed to take a few agrees this audience dealing with the substance of his talk. for those who might have questions on other subjects, following close of this program, the governor will hold a press availability outside of this building. we would therefore appreciate it if the media refrain from asking questions at this particular session. the cato institute perhaps as much as any policy group in the nation believes government spending is far too great at the federal, state and local levels. we also believe that the true tax on the american people is the resources extracted from the private sector and employed in the public sector, which is to say spending. which is why we're delighted to have governor pawlenty with us
5:40 am
today. cato publishes a biennial governor's fiscal report card and last year only four governors received the grade of a. seven got f's and probably should have been more. governor pawlenty was one of the ones who earned the a and he earned it in minnesota with a legislature controlled by the d.f.l., a party that never saw a tax hike it didn't like. chris edwards does our report card for us and if you read it, it describes a truly admirable financial orifice cal record on tim's part full of vetos, tax budgets, spending cuts. chris edits the website. a department by department, agency by agency analysis of how to reduce the size of the federal government and one last
5:41 am
comment about chris edwards. he is also the analyst who first brought to the nation's attention the fact that the pay and benefit packages of federal workers exceeds that of their private sector counterparts. caws -- calls to freeze pay. pawlenty was first elected governor of minnesota in 2002. having been re-elected in 2006. more recently, he was vice chair of the republican governor's association playing an important role in the g.o.p's remark nl pickup of 11 -- remarkable pickup of 11 governorships. as i mentioned, his talk here is about the means for reducing the size of the federal government. please welcome the former governor of minnesota, tim
5:42 am
pawlenty. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you for being here today. i want to thank ed and the cato institute for their important work and gracious hospitality in hosting these remarks. the cato institute has been at the forefront of the cause of trying to limit government and have it live within its means and have a proper limited relationship with the people of this great country and know that conservatives all across the country look to you added to the cato institute for really good research, great ideas and the work that you do and continue to do is really valued and appreciated. thank you to the cato institute. i want to just start my remarks today by reflected on something that conrad hilton said. when he was younger i remember hearing him on one of the late night shows where he was asked towards the end of his career, if you had to look the american
5:43 am
people in the eye and tell them something that you have learned that is an important lesson or something that you have given as a takeaway, what would it be? he said well, i guess what i would tell them is please put the shower curtain inside the tub. of all the things that he could have commented on, he picked that one. i think there is a message in that for us and for the topic here today. we have to use common sense. we have to make sure that we do the basic things right in the way that we know has served this country so well for so long. and if we had the time to go around this room and talk to each person, you know, start with kim and going to hillary and i can't read the gentleman, i think it is ted's name behind hillary and asked each of you to share with this group and audience more broadly, please tell us your american story. what do you value the most? what brings you the most joy and most passion? tell us what you have learned in terms of your life successes and
5:44 am
goals and disappointments? i think we would hear inspiring stories about people's faith and families. we would certainly hear inspiring stories about people having dreams and trying to build something or looking forward to a future where they are trying to do something new or different or better. i think we would hear inspiring stories about the role that community and neighborhood has played in your life. i think we would hear inspiring stories about the role that charity or flaptpi plays in your life -- philanthropy plays in your life. i think we would hear some incredible stories of people who tried all of that and failed and stumbled and somehow rebuilt and got back in the game. i think we would hear stories about people who perhaps had life challenges. for some that might be financial challenges. others, health challenges.
5:45 am
we would hear stories about neighbors or family or loved ones pulling alongside in one of those moments of challenge or chapters of challenge and picking you up and giving you a pat on the back and encouragement to keep going and on down the list. what i don't think we hear very often at least is stories about how government came into your life and transformed your life in some powerfully positive way, transformtive way to the positive. i share that story with you because the american story, the story, the greatest and most successful nation in the history of the world is not a story about the american government. it is largely a story about the american people. and those stories individually and of course collectively add up to the importance that we have placed on just those values that i have described to you. those values have made our people strong and our people good, which in turn means that our government has been strong and good. but it has to be limited.
5:46 am
as government, particularly in recent years and decades has pushed into our lives in ways that the country hasn't experienced before and begun to expand its footprint by crowding out other nongovernmental footprints pushing into areas that were the responsibility of parents or families or pushing into areas that previously were the responsibility of community or charity or philanthropy or entrepreneur or private markets. as government pushs into those areas, they not only grow their footprint and budgets and run up the numbers as we have painfully seen and i'll describe in more detail in just a moment but something else occurs that i think is equally corrosive and problematic for our country. the weight of all of that discourages the american spirit. and as i travel the country, there is a great sense around america that perhaps our better days may not be in front of us
5:47 am
but behind us. the things that we knew and appreciated and valued in the form of those values and american common sense are slipping a way. and part-time yearn to have them restored -- and people yearn to have them restored. the government comes in to say we're going to make it more difficult, we're going to make it heavier, slower, more expensive, we're going to make it more discouraging. more uncertain. we'll do these things and they really elbow and weigh down that american spirit. we need to get that back where we become a common sense can-do country that looks these challenges in the eye that i'm about to describe and that says we can do it. we're going the look each other in the eye and be bold and tell the truth and identify the challenges clearly and have the boldness and courage to address them directly and honestly with each other as a team. and these problems are so big and so large and so iminnocent that we don't have the lucks --
5:48 am
imminent of time that we don't have the luxury. we can't shove the solution on people who are poorer than us or richer than us. it is going to take all of us and the solutions that we put forward are going to have to acknowledge our requality. i grew up in st. paul, minnesota. surrounded by some of the largest stockyards. my family was a typical blue collar family. my dad for most of his life was a truck driver and then promoted to a dispatcher and ultimately terminal manager. my mom died when i was 16 years old of ovarian cancer and my dad not too much longer after that
5:49 am
lost his job. he later was able to get other work. for a while it was very uncertain. i was a young person. mom had passed on. my dad was unemployed. that community meat packing town began to unravel. lots of people, when i was a young boy facing unemployment and economic insecurity. i saw the faces of unemployment and uncertainty as a young person. after my mom died, i was the only one in my family able to go to college. my brothers and sisters lacked in the opportunity. i understood some things later on, the importance of education as a ticket forward. the importance of doing my part doing hard work getting my rear in gear making sure i did my part. the importance of a loving family and others who rallied around at times of challenge and giving you a pat on the back and the encouragement to move forward. people want to know where does
5:50 am
this perspective that you have come from? it doesn't come from for me this perspective of just reading book or paper or the like. it comes from the stuff of life. you have all had that in your own version of the american story. now as to what we're facing what happened we need to do, we need to make sure that we are very clear about telling the truth about what we're up to. our federal government is sinking in deficit and debt. our economy is sputtering. the main path way forward for most americans in terms of their opportunity is jobs. i want to focus on what it is going to take to get the federal government better under control. our federal government in rough terms takes in about $2.2 trillion a year. in interprets of federal outlays they put out about $3.7 trillion in spending. think about that. $that. they are overspending by about
5:51 am
$1.5 trillion this year. roughly one in five dollars they spend is a deficit dollar. you can't run your family finances or businesses like that. thereabout be any more -- there can't be any more sacred cows. because of this crushing debt and deficit load, we'll have to phase out to ethanol subsidies that the government has been providing. we're going to have to say to the seniors that we're going to have to change the social security program but in a way that doesn't affect the current retirees. we're going to have to look people in the eye and say it is time. we're going to gradually raise the retirement age over time.
5:52 am
we have to. it won't affect anybody currently on the program or near it. i don't like means testing philosophically but we're at the point where we're choosing between suboptimal choices. we're going to means test the cost of living adjustment for social security. if you're wealthy you won't get that going forward but if you're middle or lower income, you will. there are a lot of solutions for medicaid and medicare. we also have to to go to our other sacred cows. wall street, the financial service services industry and others to the extent that they are getting subsidies, directly or indirectly, they will have to be shut off as well as part of a larger reform. the subsidies, the handouts are over for you as well. the list goes on and on and on. the bottom line is there can be
5:53 am
no more ducking, bobbing and weaving about the real problem, the magnitude of it and what it takes to fix it. there is one part i want to camp on today in particular and that is how we deal with federal employees and of course big government and big unions have coalesced in ways not good for the country and good for the taxpayers. the people who work in government in most cases are hard-working good people. we don't mean to bash them. the system is really out of control. it needs to be reformed and restrained. we know people used to be drawn to public employment. you would often hear not long ago. i'm a public employee. i don't get paid as much as the private sector. they have really good benefits. it was kind of a tradeoff. people were drawn to public service with that swath in mind. if you fast forward to today what we know is that in many
5:54 am
cases public employees are both overpaid and overbenefited compared to this many cases compared to their private sector counterparts. that side justice not fair. we can't have the people getting -- just not fair. we can't have the people getting paid by the taxpayers getting a better deal than the taxpayers themselves. these things have to be reconciled. we need to do the basic things first. no better deal for the people getting the benefits and the pay than the people who are paying the bill. first thing we have to do is continue to freeze the salary of federal employees and in my view public employees more broadly until they are the same or no greater than the private sector employees. in other words, there is a temporary freeze and i froze salaries when i was governor of the state of minnesota as well. it wasn't until the differential to the positive for public employees is brought down or the private sector meets up with
5:55 am
that, we have to continue to freeze public employee salaries. no question about that. we can't just measure this in the value of the salary only. there is a current federal system and other systems at the state level where people make comparisons. if you just look at the salary or the cost of living adjustments then they will make the argument that public employees really are not overpaid compared to private sector counterparts but keep in mind a number of things. we have to look at the total package. salary and benefits added together. you can't just look at the annual cost of living adjustment. we have to look at the longevity or seniority advance they get and we also have to look at their benefits. most public employees have a defined benefit pension program. most people in the private sector don't have that anymore. particularly new employees entering into the workforce and in many cases public employees not only have a defined benefit
5:56 am
plan which guarantees a result without regard to how the stock market is doing but in many cases they also have the defined contribution program which we have or most people in private sector have and they also get in many cases a match. so they get both. the point of all that is is we're going to have to transition the public employee workforce from a defined benefit contribution plan to what most of the private sector gets which is a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan. those things have to be synchronized and changed and reformed. how to do that in minnesota i took one of the longest transit strikes in the history of the country. the bus drivers in my state wanted to work just 15 years. then they wanted to be able to retire and be eligible for the government to pay for their health insurance for the rest of their life. it was a major unfunded liability.
5:57 am
of course it was financially upside down. when their contract came up for renewal i said we can't do that anymore. it is bankrupting the transit system. they said yes, we are. if you don't, we're going to shut down the transit system and you'll be begging us to take that deal. i asked people if you're not in government. please raise your hand if you get to work just 15 years and then retire and then be eligible for 15 years for someone to pay your health insurance for the rest of your life. no hands ever went up. said did you know that the bus drives get that. they do? do you think we should do something about that? heck yeah. with that kind of interaction, the public knowing they were not getting the same deal and we were paying the bill for it were more than happy to change. that bus system was shut down for 44 days. in the end the bus drivers came back and we shut off that benefit for the new hires and the finances of this system
5:58 am
began to correct themselves. i share that study with you. it is just one case study of how you have to do these things. these are powerful interests deeply ingrained. we're going to have to have an equal amount of fortitude and vigor to draw some lines in the sand. back in 2010, most recently i signed a bill that reduced the increases in public employee pensions to get them back to soundness. that means they have to contribute more as employees. it means if they were not in very good financial shape, the increases in benefits would be decreases over time and in some cases down to zero. now we have them on a better path towards solvency. they didn't want to define
5:59 am
contribution. now we got sued over it by the retirees so it is pending in court so it is an important reform going forward. next, we're going to have to sthrink federal workforce. it -- shrink the federal workforce. we have 40% of the federal workforce scheduled for retirement in the not too distant future. through attrition, replacing only onor these workers for each two that retire. government as you know, has a lot of work to do in terms of getting on the front on the other hand technology and efficiency improving the systems in a way that involves the demand for fewer employees but still provides the service in a robust way. i get criticized in minnesota
157 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on