vigilant on the elections you get to decide. get informed and make the decisions but get involved. at the end of the day, the money is not what members are seeking. they are seeking your boat. they're spending the money to get yourvote. host: open sea.o critzrg -- open secrets.org is the website. tomorrow, a full show for memorial day which starts at 7:00. major deputy buchanan will join us. for operations in iraq and that will be followed up by major general james malory of the nato training mission in afghanistan. we'll talk about trading the afghan police force. we will also discuss afghanistan with a senior fellow

and we'll talk led u.s. counterinsurgency operations there. we will finish up the discussion with a look at page for highways, upkeep and tens of that nature and what that means for gas tax. all that and we will take a look at the papers and get your calls and tweets as well at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ >> neck", newsmakers" with ♪ oklahoma senator tom coburn than bill clinton talks about

medicare funding and the deficit and later today, we will show you more of the commencement speakers beginning with florida senator mark rubio. >> our guest this week is oklahoma republican senator tom coburn of. >> we want to talk about the gang of six. this was a group of senators trying to solve the problem of the $4 trillion national debt that group was trying to bring all the pieces together to try to address revenues and bring down spending and deal with entitlements and it was considered one of the best hopes for finding a bipartisan compromise. last week you decided you had had enough and you take a break.

why did you make that decision? guest: it is not just a $14 trillion debt. people need to understand that. we are projected to run excess of a $1 trillion deficit each of the next nine years which is unsustainable. our country will crash economically if we do not fix that. the largest component of that is mandatory spending programs. the problems all -- we ran into an impasse. there are no hard feelings. i said maybe we need to take a break because we could move in the direction i thought we had to move to actually fix the problem which is some real significant changes in the programs that were 75%-80% of the money. it is a false economy to say you are doing something if you have not fixed the real problem. i think we need to pause for a while. i does not mean i will not go

back. i thought i would spend some of my time detailing where you could find $9 trillion. the american people need to know that for us to get out of the problem we are in, we have to cut $9.70 trillion over the next 10 years. that is far greater than what anybody is talking about. they are talking about some talk -- buying some time so you can go and do that. washington always kicked the can down the road. the reason we are in trouble today is because members of congress have been kicking the can down the road. i called dick durbin and i said we -- i think we are at an impasse and he said i think so too. i said i think i will take a break. i went and talked to warner the other guys and said i was going to take a break. i am not the easiest guy to work with in the world. maybe they could come up with

some different things. if we can put it back together, we will. >> is it your expectation that they will proceed without you? >> i cannot speak for them. i have not been going to the meetings. i don't know. there are a couple of things i do know. if we do not do this, you will have financial repression in this country. let me describe what that is. that is everybody in this country who has any asset whatsoever, that asset value will be debased. the net earnings you earn on the assets will be less of what the inflation will be which is the worst tax of all of middle income and poor americans. that is if congress does not make the hard choices on this $9.70 trillion. everybody in america will suffer. the wealthy will suffer as well it just won't be as impact on their lives. the american middle-class, their

savings and future will evaporate through this net negative earnings. inflation will be greater than what you can turn on your assets. that is the real risk. guest: you had three republicans on the gang of six who were willing to buck the party establishment and conservatives like grover norquist and the like by saying new revenues have to be part of the equation. you got a lot of slings and arrows for that. can you talk about that? >> sure, look where we are historically. we are at 26% of gdp on our spending and we are less than 16% on our revenues. a good portion of that is associated with our economic difficulties we have had. we have not quite got to where we were in terms of gdp before the recession started.

the tax revenues still aren't coming in line with that. -- we have an extent -- congress has not established companies in the business community. there is $3 trillion sitting on the side waiting to be invested. the banks will not longer we have this ability to create -- the truffle phenomenon says that you can reach a certain peak at which you tax people and then you will not collect the tax payers. there will either moved offshore or will not invest the money to get the return. the highest peak we ever got was around 20% in 2000. we had all this capital gains made off of the tech bubble. we will never get 25% net taxes to the federal government. it has never happened and it

will not happen. but does not mean there is not a case for increasing the revenue of the federal government at a time when our whole future is based on the fact that we need to solve this problem. to solve this problem. we'll never get the changes in these programs without giving something and we have to give revenue increases. you can go in tax everybody above $250,000. you could tax all the money and you would not solve our problems. you don't want to decrease the investment in the economy more than it all at -- it at -- it has already been. if revenue does not increase, the actual revenue may go down

as we raise rates. if you change the tax code and incentivize capital formation, you can get a dynamics' core that would show you could raise between 750-$1.20 trillion more in the economy because people see a fairer tax code. >> it seems like were the gang of six was going, if you reached the agreement that you would have had more democrats willing to embrace it than republicans. with the exception of a handful of people, the republicans are less willing to give on the question of revenues. >> i don't think that's true. that is the typical of in washington. i think republicans want to fit our problems as bad as anybody. they just don't want us to do it -- they have been burned.

you give the revenue increases but you don't get the spending. we were gonna get the spending cuts. i think a lot of republicans will go there if they think it solves the problem. if you are not really addressing significant mandatory programs in a way that will create significant savings and you don't by the time. you don't by the time. this will only do half of what people are talking about $2.30 trillion does not by as anything. that does not by as the time we need. need. >> sticking with texas, have you

tried to deal with the $9.60 trillion deficit over the next few years? what is the appropriate level of taxes? >> can you put in tax policies to get to above 80%? if you go back and look at the history of tax changes, you cannot get above 8%. -- 18%. -- 18%. we are into things we should not be doing because we don't do that well and we don't have the constitutional authority. >> what about your most recent report on waste?

i think taxes is a critical question because democrats want -- they want to see a tax structure that actually raise additional revenue, recognizing that we have an aging population and the retirement programs will cost more. can you and your republican colleagues go for a tax reform proposal that increases revenue? >> we we can do that. >> to what level? >> if you get the economy growing, you can get to 18%. you'll never get to 21%. behavior's change. when you put in at that level, behavior's change. people will split. there will go where they can protect that and come. the real thing we should do is we should sunset the tax code,

put in a flat tax for everybody and make an exception for the very poor. that is what we should do. we should put that level somewhere between 18% and 20% where we can have revenues. trillionnding 1/4 of a dollars paying our taxes and nobody knows whether they are paying them right. even the irs doesn't know. we should sunset the code and say here is a flat tax and everybody pays this rate at this lower marginal income, you get a rebate. in other words, we'll have everybody treated the same and we will make a simple system. that saves us a ton of money and create clarity in terms of investment. that is our real problem today as we can i get people to let go of their money and invest in the future because they don't have confidence. i think there are all sorts of ways to get that revenue up but

i don't think there is a way under the present tax code because we have never been able to do except one time. we had a tremendous boom in the tech bobble and everybody had great capital gains and one year. i recognize that i would much rather have a smaller government. i know we have to pay more for what we have if we are ever going to get reform and some other things. it is called a compromise. we will have to get some on revenues to be able to do that. >> let me move to the entitlement programs. your comment on the new york special election this week? >> i don't think it will have any effect. it is a like to tell people that medicare will be the same from five years from now.

it will not. it is a financial impossibility. you don't have to like what paul ryan did but where is the option? the default option is that you will have fewer doctors, less will have fewer doctors, less care, less procedures and those decisions will be made by boards. >> he is making the case of the public. >> they have not made that case. that is what i will do. that is what i have done on the floor. it is dishonest to tell singers that the default position is you can have what you can have today. it will not happen. we don't have the money and will not have the money. we had 3 million people per year to medicare. it is an impossibility. it is an impossibility. we need to pay for medicare now

from the chinese. for people to scare them to say that your medicare will go away, the only way you save medicare and supply care is to change the system. the default position says that somebody in washington will tell you what you will get and what new technology will get and you don't have a doctor willing to do it. the only way they can solve this problem is to cut reimbursement. , in a doctor's right now -- if this did what it is supposed to do, this will reimburse doctors less than the rate of medicaid. it seniors think they want

health care system that reimburses their providers at a lower rate than medicare, they should accept the argument of those that don't want medicare change. in the long run, we do not allow access for health care for people in medicare. >> we can give you credit for working out a plan and being part of a gang of six. it seems clear that the leadership of your party and the democratic party in the senate is not a very eager to take on these sort of big issues right now as we gear up for the presidential campaign. the weak fuel left the gang of six, you wrote a scathing editorial which basically said that the senate is whistling past a graveyard. it sounded like you were almost bring up your hands. >> how do you change things in america? one way is to make sure the american people see the debate.

when you are not having the debate, you don't inform the public. the great thing about our founding fathers and the senate was to have great debates about the issues of our day that are important to everybody. with c-span, so many people get to see these and read about the men here about them that you can influence the public's understanding. not having a debate is not an option. we have not had 90 votes -- we are a level of 1/4 in the way we get that many boats. our problems are gigantic compared to seven years ago. why are we not having a budget? tell me why it is ok for the senate to not have a budget? the majority leader doesn't want the votes because there are boats and the minority leader does not want to them because they are hard votes.

they're wondering how to maintain their majorities. it should not matter to the american people who controls the senate as long as they are fixing the problems. to not fix the problem is an extraordinary knife into the heart of america. we have political spin. who can spin it for the next election and that is the problem in washington today. why will it take on those who are for tax increases? who cares to but don't get reelected. ? when you left the gang of six, you rub it of its credibility on some various things. >> it does not have any

credibility of the does not fix the main problem. if you're not going to go after fixing the problems, we can get all this out of discretionary. unless you are willing to address medicare changes or social security changes or medicaid changes which is worth 78% of our money, you cannot fix the problem. >> when you're on the fiscal commission and you said this does not have everything i like and i want to do more, the problem is so bad now -- >> why are we putting the fiscal commission buildup in four amendments? we're not doing that either. why has the president not embrace the fiscal commission? we need to do something. what i felt like we were going for was not going to accomplish that. rather than do that, i am 63

years of age. when i beat my head up been urged against the wall for a certain amount of time, i think will go do something else for a while. these guys negotiated in good faith. i don't care what the politics are any more. i have been vocal supporter and revenue increases after left the commission as i was before. i'm not opposed to that because i think that the only way we solve our problems and build a consensus in the senate to get some changes. i will not go for revenue increases if we're not going to fix the problem. i did not see we were fixing the problem. i will put out a menu for people to shoot at and be critical of. it is like the report we put out today. it is one of my favorite agencies but can do about 12%- 13% better every year. every agency can.

i have the data to show where it can be done and that is what congress fails to do. we create a new program rather than fix the broken programs. than fix the broken programs. i want to really fix the problem. that is hard. it means to alienate people. these other people who are behind the programs. the entire goals we to make everybody mad who causes the problems in this country >> how damaging has been to the gang of six process to have leader mcconell and focus on the joe biden talks? biden talks? >> i think that remains to be seen. if the gang of six came out with the program, it is not damaged at all. it does not matter where we get the answers as long as we get answers.

if biden and kyl and cantor and the democrats on the council, we have to fix the problem. the idea of playing chicken, things only happen when you're up against a deadline. all at says is that this terrible leadership. you cannot lead based on the principles of leadership. you have to have a deadline to help you do that. the whole point is everybody is the whole point is everybody is looking past the problem to the politics. democrats, independents, and republicans are sick of that. they are tired of hearing the spin. they are wary about the country and they know we are not meeting the task. >> this is my speculation but it seems as though there has been a

decision made that we can only to do so much right now. we cannot do $9.50 trillion in deficit reduction. what is politically realistic? what could actually pass those chambers now and the front -- and be signed by the president? >> not a maze of late -- not a measly $2 trillion. in a couple of years, we're back in the same boat. we have falsely low interest rates today. we are buying that bite feeling -- that feeling. -- that feeling. if the only due to dollars trillion and that often the next year-and-a-half, that is eating

up. once you borrow money to pay interest on interest, you are in trouble. you cannot get out of the credit card. there will not be another credit card company that will help you. you have to look at what the changes have been. look at how tim brightener has lowered the interest rate -- tim geithner has lowered the interest rate. we should be back to 120 months of our term so we have some insurance that buys time to fix the problem. we cannot get $9.70 trillion. if the american people understood the waist and the government and the inefficiencies and health care and know that you can get $9.70 trillion for from that, it does not matter which political philosophy, you would agree with that. no one wants is wasting money.

>> a few weeks ago senator ensign was forced to resign. the ethics committee report has your name in it. you tried to convince center and san to stop the affair and ultimately, it discusses the question whether you were an intermediary or working on the question of how to get mr. hampton out and if there would be compensation. >> that is totally inaccurate. i got a phone call one day from hampton. the story you hear is not an accurate reflection of what happened. >> the group known as a crew has filed an ethics complaint against you. have they contacted you? >> i have testified before the

committee and i have no worries. what i did is what i would do be the same again. we put two families back together with multiple children and both marriages are stable right now. i am proud of what i did and the way i did it. there's nothing on what we did. the stories are just stories to be able to try to take away from what the real problems of our country are. i have no problems with what i did or how i did it. >> we are out of time but thank you for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we talked to senator tom coburn. what did you learn? >> it sounds like tom coburn is willing to go for a tax reform scenario that raises revenues. it's college on a gang of six,

his republican colleagues have been very careful to say that they want to reform the tax code but we only want to raise money through economic programs. tom carver and told us that would not be enough. -- tom coburn told us that would not be enough. that is a big change. that is a big change. >> they will be negotiating the senate majority the next time around. >> one of the things tom coburn said today and that is something that everyone knows to be true that is that if you have to get a big deal, it will involve taxes and spending cuts. we go to these budget briefings all the time and talk to these by wonks and everybody says this

is true except the mindoro -- majority and minority leader and everyone is hiding behind their political positions. at least tom coburn is willing to stand up and take the heat for stating what a lot people think could be true. >> the clock is ticking on the debt limit. qc a grand plan emerging from all of this? >> the way i read the signals from mcconnell and others on the hill is that the grand bargain that the gang of six was trying to engineer is not a favored course of action. what people are looking for is a way to get through the debt limit debate. to do that, they have to convince a good number of conservatives in the house that they are tackling the debt problem but nobody has the problem but nobody has the stomach right