the issues and topics tomorrow morning. on this sunny morning, thank you for being with us. enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ >> coming up, representative sander levin on the way democrats will address economic issues. after that, programs on raising the debt limit starting with house floor debate. then remarks from president obama and house leaders. and then freshman house members after a meeting with tim

geithner. >> he was known in the day as czar reed. it was not regarded as a complement but he regarded it as one. >> during his terms in the 1890's, thomas reed change the power structure of the house. >> he was impugned as a tyrant because the overturned a long standing custom in the house, the minority on equal parliamentary footing with the majority. >> tonight, and james grant on his new biography of thomas read on c-span. you can download this and other podcasts online at c-span. >> monday on c-span, our road to the white house coverage continues with former senator rick santorum as he makes his official presidential campaign announcement. that is live from somerset, pa.

at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> this week on "newmakers", we are joined by sander levin, democrat of michigan and the top democrat on the ways and means committee. we also have two reporters to help us with questioning -- alberto sanchez, budget and appropriation reporter with the "national journal," and ian swanson, news editor at "the hill" newspaper. ian, go ahead with the first question. >> thanks. >> glad to be here. we've known each other a few years. >> yes, and i'm looking forward to the talk today. i'm going to start out with a disappointing topic, at least -- the labor department today put out a report for jobs figures for may that found the economy only added 54,000 jobs last month. this came, of course, after a slew of other bad economic news, on housing, other private sector forecasts on jobs and manufacturing. i'm curious how worried you are that we are approaching the possibility of a double-dip recession. >> i would not say double dip is at all likely. i think it is clear that we

have an economic challenge continuing. that is why i am really disappointed when -- in the house. they've lost sight of that, and any effort to try to do something to stimulate the economy is just shunted aside. and the answer seems to be cut the deficit, and that will somehow work miracles. we have to cut the deficit, but it is surely isn't going to work miracles in the short run. so i was talking earlier today about the build america bonds which have brought $100 billion worth of infrastructure development and the republican house simply refuses to look at them. that is the kind of program, ian, that we should be looking at, continuation of that bond program. we've got to continue to stimulate the economy, because it is economics 101.

i once took economics 101. the teacher turned out to win the nobel prize. it didn't do me much good, a nobel economics prize. it is so clear that you have to stimulate growth, and one of the best ways, if not the best way, to address the deficit is through economic growth. so that report raises, if not a red flag, a yellow flag. >> do you draw the line between the bad economics -- the bad jobs report today and the austerity measures that came about in the fiscal year 2011 spending deal that was struck? >> there was also some stimulus in that. it was a mixed bag. in the end, everybody who was concerned about the mixture had to decide how to vote. but there was some stimulus in that the republicans did not

like. also there was unemployment comp. it is clear -- i think almost all economists say if you extend unemployment comp for people who have lost their jobs, the money will be spent. and in that sense, it is good for economic growth. we need to get people back to work -- or if they are out of work, we need to make sure they have unemployment comp. and you know, i was talking today about a bill the republicans have brought up that would have taken all the unemployment comp money beginning july, unemployment insurance, and said to the states, you can essentially do any of three things and you do not have to use it for unemployment benefits for the people who were laid off, the majority of whom have been laid off long term. i think we have created such an uproar that i think they have dropped that. but i raise it because it

illustrates, i think, the misguided notion that republicans have about whether we need to stimulate economic growth and what will do it besides lowering taxes. >> the republican argument for much of the last two years is that the stimulus has not done enough to help the economy. at the same time, now, we have five months of basically a freeze in spending, the 2011 spending bill cuts $40 billion in funding for the rest of the year. it seems that all of the sudden we're seeing the economy slow up again after a few months of growth in the job sector. i am wondering if you have any concerns that the freeze in spending and cuts, if that is starting to slow down any momentum in the economy that had been building. >> i think that was a negative side to some extent. there were positive sides. the republicans are just wrong

that the stimulus package did nothing to stimulate economic growth. unemployment went down. it has gone up 0.1% now in the last month. but we created more jobs this last period, the last six months, than were created on under george bush. >> now you have a situation where most of the stimulus, most of the stimulus from the famous stimulus bill from 2009 is running out this year. you have the payroll tax cut that works for the rest of the year. but that is only another six months. the fed is going to stop pushing money into the economy, we think at least, at the end of this month. now that we see the economy slow down, is there a worry that without further stimulus that things could get worse? >> yes. and the secretary of the treasury says that. again, economic growth is an

important factor in addressing the deficit. if we do not grow much better, it is going to be hard by any other measure to grab ahold of the deficit. you'd think this was relatively doable. you have been reporting for a long time. i would guess you might be with the public, what is the problem here? why can't we move and find some kind of common ground? the problem in large measure -- not only, but in large measure -- is that the republicans are stuck on a rigid ideological base, both policy-wise and politically. and they think that any further stimulus is a bad idea and they deny that there is some positive impact. i was reading the report -- the

comments on the moody's indication, they worry about the debt ceiling and the delay. one republican said it is not our mess. and in the "new york times" report, it indicates what has been indicated, that so much of that deficit is a result of the policies under george bush, later, in these last months or last year and a half, in part because of the recession. but i just say to the naysayers, when we had this problem, when there was a recession, what was there to do? nothing? not have any stimulus? not have any government action? i remember the debate we had on the floor about the build american bonds. it goes to private-sector hands.

some of the republicans got up and said, "why is the government into this?" and i just said, you know, "because we have got to get some money to the states." and then they said, "why are the states into this?" well, road money goes to the states. that is why the infrastructure money has gone -- the build american bonds went to states and local communities. so we're really stuck and we have to get off dead center. >> obviously the debt is a huge problem. $14.3 trillion ceiling we're about to hit, and the public is against raising the limit for further spending. it sounds like you're talking about how to prevent the economy from getting worse. there should be more government spending right now? >> i think we need some stimulus carefully. but let me say a word about the public, because i really take

pride in trying to find out what my constituents think. i think there's a need for some more leadership. the more that we explain how we move on the debt ceiling, the more understanding there will be, because if we did not act and the markets exploded like moody's said would happen, then everybody would say, why did you let it happen? the only way is to make sure it does not happen. and the republicans are just too stringent, just having blinders on and saying it is my way or the highway. >> congressman, democrats have drawn their own line in the sand and said do not touch medicare. medicare cannot be part of these negotiations. the medicare trustees have come out and said it that it is

worse than we originally thought. if you stay on this current path to medicare, it will go bust earlier than we thought it would. how can you keep going down this path with medicare and not reform it? how can you do that? >> first of all, in terms of the short term, what the republicans are suggesting does not affect it. in the longer term, i said it on the floor and i tried to say it carefully, because just before i spoke a few days ago, someone on the majority side got up and said, "we are here to save medicare." and i said, look, be forthright. you want to end it. not save it. you cannot save something by ending it. you can have a different alternative. so i think the ryan -- the

republican plan to end medicare is a bad idea. >> will it not go bankrupt if nothing is done? >> i am not sure bankrupt is the right word. we're talking about solvency and insolvency. the answer is we need to get a hold of health care costs. it is perhaps the major driver, longer-term, of the deficit. but there are only two ways to do it. one is to privatize medicare, end it, and say to consumers, we'll give you a check and you go out and buy insurance. the other way to do what we are doing all these years is to use medicare as the instrumentality to reform the way we deliver health care. and i can say based on personal experience, and within our family in terms of health care, the present fee-for-service system is unsustainable. it's also -- you cannot fathom

it if you have to work with it. so the answer is, we need to take medicare and use it as an instrumentality to reform the fee-for-service, and there are some ingredients now in the affordable care act to do that. the president has said we need to go further. and i agree with that. >> if there is a deal to raise the debt ceiling that includes cuts to medicare, would you vote for raising the debt ceiling? >> i think the president will make sure that we will not face that. i think we should not cut benefits to medicare as part of the deal. >> how confident are you that the president is with you on that? you are at the white house thursday with the rest of the caucus. and i know this question came up. >> i am confident. i do not think that there will be any tampering with the

benefits. >> do you see some changes to medicare -- defined savings? the senate republicans have said that medicare has to be part of a deal on raising the debt limit. the president has proposed some changes. also, i want to get your take on -- in the past the president has made deals with republicans that disappointed democrats. i am thinking of the tax deal where he agreed to extend the rates on the upper income people as well as the inheritance tax. >> the president made clear at the white house we're not supposed to talk about these meetings. i am not telling you any secrets, because he has said it before. he will not agree to any extension of the bush tax cuts on high-income people. as i said in my talk on tax reform, the upper income people

have done so well on the average these last 10 to 12 years, while 90% of the population had stagnant income. for the upper income group, it has gone up. we have more income disparity today than we have had in a long, long time. and so, yes, i am confident that what the president says about the high income bush tax cuts is where he stands. i think if it is not addressed, and it will not be before the november election, it will be resolved, and president obama reelected will make sure that there is tax equity. and that means that we cannot extend beyond next year the upper income tax cuts. millionaires, when we did the analysis, the joint tax committee said that it would

take $38 billion to extend the bush higher-income tax, $38 billion a year. about 75% to 80% of that is income above $1 million. it is not millionaires, it's income above $1 million. that is multi- multimillionaires, unless somebody hit the lottery. >> you can see that health care costs are the biggest threat to the deficit. do you think the democrats have opened themselves up to political criticism by not putting out a more concrete plan on how to tackle the deficit? >> you mentioned health care, and again, we are talking about this. the president made clear in his speech that more has to be done in terms of controlling health care costs. part of it is prescription drugs and making sure that we

control the increase in those costs and move more more to generic. also, we had a meeting with dr. collins, head of nih. funding nih, and the republicans in real dollar terms have let it slip. part of this is adequate funding for nih and getting new drugs, but we need -- those are patented drugs. we have to make sure that generics are more and more used. but in addition to that -- and that is a lot of money -- if we did the same thing as va did and medicaid did, through medicare, we would save many, many tens of billions. but we would have to get ahold of the fee-for-service system. we are paying not by results, but by volume. by volume. and so if you go in and you see five doctors in the hospital,

you could see five of the same specialty, and you will get a bill from five of them. so i am not blaming the physicians, but more more, as i talk to them, i think they realize that we need to move away from fee for service. and the only way to do that, the main way to do that is through reforms through medicare, where we begin to control the hospitial costs, and i remember the first couple of years, what a hullabaloo that caused, but it helped. >> but should there be a more concrete plan? one of the criticisms of the republicans is that that democrats do not have a budget proposal that would include these -- >> we did pass it in the house budget. they did not like it. i will bet you that regardless of what they say, if you could turn out the lights and have a re-vote on the republican

budget plan, there would be many more republicans who would not vote for it. >> what do you think the number would be? >> i do not like to predict the republican vote. [laughter] >> more or less? >> i think it would be -- because you can see a number of them are backing off. look at what has happened in the senate. they have lost several people. i think some of the senators who voted for it wished they did not have to. >> you did a major address on taxes today and i want to go back to something you said a second ago. you are confident that president obama will be reelected and will not allow the bush tax rates for wealthier households to be extended again after the end of next year. i am wondering if you expect comprehensive tax reform to happen, then, before the election or if you think we will do something a little more narrow in scope initially, and

then a larger tax reform will come after the presidential election. >> we have been having hearings on tax reform in ways and means. but i said this in my speech, and i meant it -- in the republican house budget, there is really nothing but a number. 25% top rate for individuals and corporations. they do not say how they get there. and i pointed that out that to get there you have to end almost all the tax preferences. mortgage interest deduction, health care deductions, the health care exclusion, charitable -- you have to eliminate that. state and local taxes, the deductions for that. the education benefits, which have transformed education in the district i represent.

so what i am saying is that if we're going to have honest and useful discussions about tax reform, you just cannot throw out a number. and i think two reform commissions did some useful things. but when one of them said, throw out all of these tax preferences, i think it failed to inform people as to who the beneficiaries are. and in that speech, i did include the health care benefits, which very dominantly are with middle-income families. the same has been true almost as much with the mortgage interest deduction. just walk the streets where i represent. you can pick any one, and you will find so many middle-class families that would not likely

have had that home purchased, often the first one in their families, without the deduction. >> we have about five minutes left. >> they look at it but they just don't -- >> let's go back to the debt- deficit negotiations, the august 2 deadline. some republicans have said if the debt ceiling is not raised, there would not be a catastrophe. you disagree with them, i assume. why would there be a catastrophe? >> i do not know -- i brought the moody's thing. i would just read it. [laughter] if i can pick out -- it might downgrade the u.s. government sterling credit rating if congress did not increase the nation's debt limit in coming weeks. the warning amounted to a stern reminder from wall street to washington that global financial markets are watching the budget battle closely.

a standoff or brinkmanship could have economic consequences. >> couldn't the treasury move things around? >> someone is proposing to pay off china, but not others, other bondholders? look, there is some issues you cannot escape. the debt ceiling is one of them. there is really one alternative, and that is to raise it. and then the issue becomes, with what else? and those who want to escape that issue by saying -- i heard senator toomey, i think he is wrong. we cannot take a chance. >> even on the very short term, there was an article in "the wall street journal" claiming a short-term lapse of the debt ceiling would not be catastrophic. it would be acceptable. >> i do not want to take a chance. it is the country. to disrupt our sterling credit

rate because of some theory? >> how do you think it plays out? they went up until 11:30 p.m. on a government shutdown earlier this year. there's an august 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling according to treasury. do you expect a bill to come sooner than that or do you think we will go right up until august 2? >> no, it has to be sooner, and that is what moody's says. you cannot always wait. i guess you're used to deadlines being the end, and then we move them, but we cannot play around. >> do you think the message has been muddied a little since the treasury has the ability to move around funds? >> no, i think -- i do not think the message is muddied. except those who do not want to face up to it. >> you are going to colombia next week and you'll be there for a week. how confident are you right now that there will be a vote on the colombia free trade agreement

this year? you obviously still have some differences. >> there was an action plan negotiated between the two governments. it's a result of work that has been done for 15 years to put worker rights into the center of trade agreements -- and the environment. it took a struggle, but it was the first time it was done and it had been negotiated not by george bush, but by mr. rangel and myself. some help from the treasury. i'm going to colombia to see how the action plan is being implemented and whether there are some further issues that need to be addressed. that is why i am going to go. i have always done this, to go myself, and spend five or six days in serious discussions with everybody.

>> would you vote against it at this point? >> i'm going to see what is going on. >> let me ask you about redistricting. it looks like you and gary hughes might be in the same district. what are your thoughts on the redistricting plan? >> i wish i could have brought the maps. i think the public would look and say, what kind of shapes are those? they've got salamanders and crocodiles. and cats and dogs. >> the republicans in illinois are wondering, too. >> it makes no sense. in terms of -- look, the voters need to have a choice and this is just one, this is a map that is not official. and i hope people realize what it does. what it does is to say, there

are now four contested seats in michigan. i ran for 10 years in a very contested seat and that was good. to move from four contested seats in michigan under this draft plan to zero? that is bad democracy. >> are you confident you could be reelected if the redistricting plan goes through? >> yes, but i want to run in a plan that is fair to the people. i feel that deeply. each of us needs to look out after our own careers but we have to look out at what this is all about. and redistricting that says there are no competitive districts, and thats districtscan just go like this and go wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. and then disregard communities of interest, community lines, county lines, for purely partisan political reasons -- i think the more the public sees that, i hope they will reject it. i hope the republicans that control everything in michigan

will realize this is bad for the people of michigan. >> so you are running for reelection. >> i am running, but i am running at this point to try to make sure that michigan voters have a fair shake. i want to say that strongly to you. if you look at this districts, and if i might say so, what sense does this make? what sense does it make? and shouldn't there be some competitive districts? why are people voting? if it is all republicans or all democratic, if the only people who count are the people of a party in each district, how does that work? it does not work for michigan. and it is bad for democracy. and here, by the way, i finish with this. there seems to be a merger. there seems to be a merger.