hear what you think about codepink mission and tactics. ,e'll take your calls, tweets and facebook comments. we will year from the lyrical science professor, david meyer, author of "the politics of protest." that begins ? next a discussion about the house and senate efforts to approve the 2014 budget. then the 2012 election. after that another chance to see q&a with code pink founder. >> the sequester will reduce r grants by about 5% which equates to $22 million or so which will be distributed among

the various licenseees and stations i have described. so we have taken about a 13% cut in our overall funding in the last two years. if the entire government had sustained cuts we had sustained the budget would be $500 illion smaller than it is now. so we feel we've made a significant contribution to debt reduction. >> the impact of spending cuts on public television on the communicate tors on c-span2. >> the british house of commons is in recess so prime minister's questions will not be seen tonight. it returns on april 17 on c-span2. next a discussion on the prospects of the house and senate agreingsing on a 2014 budget. this is from "washington journal."

it's about 30 minutes. >> and we're back with our budget round table. stan collender writes for roll call and capital gains and games.com. and peter morici from the university of maryland, welcome to you both. >> peter, let me begin with you. there is lots of talk president obama wants to have a grand bargain in this budget process. what does a grand bargain look like to you? guest: that would put us in good shape long term. get the budget deficit down to a level where the growth in the debt essentially levels off and it is at a level where as a percentage of the whole economy is considered to be sustainable. right now we're on track to become an italy and that is to have a debt that is too big and have bond holders lose

confidence. host: how do you get to a grand bargain, what do you cut? guest: the only way is to do omething about the growth of entitlement spending. doing something about medicaid and medicare which obama care has apparently not accomplished. host: what does a grand bargain look like to you? guest: spending cuts. that will be on medicaid and ked care and the social security side s. entitlements, that's the bargain. we've shown through sequestration that appropriations, defense, domestic spending can be cut or at least will be cut. what we haven't shown is any willing tons combine tax increases and entitlement cuts

in a meaningful way. the president says he wants it. it's hard for me to see how the politics have change sod much that because someone wants it it will happen. host: what are the odds a grand bargain happens? >> much less than 50/50. guest: if you look at the chairman of the budget committee and the chairman of the house budget committee and what they are proposing, i view them as a group together that e bline to facts and deaf to reason. the democrats believe we don't have to do something about social security and medicare and medicaid and you can trim them here and there but they are not growing at an unsustainable rate. if you look @ republicans, they have fanciful notion of how to

constrain the cost that are from the land of oz. a good one being give granny a voucher. right now we have competition in the sense that big employers like yours and mine go out and negotiate with insurance companies for rates and in turn they negotiate with providers. see that increasing dramatically. i don't know how granny will negotiate. are think both the budgets equally -- >> i apologize. murray's budget doesn't recognize that the way we run social security, it's not just

retirement age, it's also how we define the benefit are unrealistic and unsustainable. it's not an ideological thing. the numbers don't work. . it's like saying i'm going to etire and collect $100,000 a year and only have $300,000 in the bank. if you have a life expect si of five years, you're in trouble. >> politics will drive lack of a deal. i can't tell you how many republicans have told me since election day they are not sure if the republicans will win the house or white house again. they will keep the senate as long as they don't do anything to lose the base. tax increases are the one thing that will turn them off. so seeing a deal coming up, seeing republicans give in on revenues is hard to imagine no

matter what they get on spending host: what about their base of elderly voters saying what do you want to do to medicare? do you want to have it a private system? guest: anybody who reforms social security, medicare, medicaid, republicans, democrats, green, yellow, orange, blue. you don't touch anybody over the age of 55 because people at 55 are plang and they are on a trend line. guest: they vote in higher percentages. guest: they vote in higher percentages. but if you look at it from an equity point of view, those people have plans. they are stuck. every proposal you get leaves those folks alone. if you convince them you are going to leave them alone they

won't vote against you. with big lobbying groups like aarp, they are not always helpful in that regard. at some point in the future, you pull the rug out of the legacy group or the people that are grandfathered into the old system. also in defense of mr. ryan, he claims, he says his intention to give people a choice, the old system or the new. but the economics aren't good because we know how that will work. the healthiest people will go in the new system and leave the old system overburdened. guest: he does so little detail it's easy to mischaracterize what it is. guest: we both read the budget. even at the levels of principles he es spoused and i'm a conservative. it doesn't make good economics. if he were one of my grad

students i would require him to go to the school of theology because what he's putting out is theology host: what grade would you give him? >> with regard to healthcare, i would give an f. changing the indexes system for social security, doesn't save a hot of money going -- don't want to get too technical but changing the way you come fute c.p.i., it would give them a nudge. a correct calculation of the c.p.i. would give them more because they toned consume a different batch of goods than young people. and those are the most rapidly increasing in healthcare. one of the problems we have with social security if it's half your income and you live 20 years, by the time you are

85 your real buying power, the people in the system a long time is already substantially eroded. they are not much interested in talking about facts or reason. guest: this is not a rational debate. peter and i could do statistics all day long but this debate comes down to the budget debate is more emotional than it is rational. guest: people are making up their own facts. host: working for both committees, is this typical? are they doing something new here? guest: it's typical but exaggerated. i've never seen a situation as bad as it is now with one side blocking the other no matter what it is. used to you came to washington to do something, now you come to get re-elected. add to that social media, talk show hosts, don't take that

personally, the way we communicate is different now. the overexaggeration. the tea party, you've got a situation that is far worse than anything we had when i was on the hill. host: i want to have paul ryan come back and see if there is anything the two of you like from what you heard. >> we believe we owe the american people a balanced budget. we balance this tpwhudget just ten years. this say document, a plan that balance it is budget in just ten years. the house budget committee has spent the last several weeks working together with each other just like families and businesses do around the country. we've assembled a budget so our doesn't tri can live within its means. it's a reasonable goal, balancing the budget. we can't keep spending money we don't v. when you budget, you

cannot continue to kick the can down the road and spend money we don't have. how do we do this? we cut wasteful spending. we repair the safety net to help those in need. we protect medicare, a prom that is going bankrupt and we foster a healthier economy so we can create jobs and grow more wages. you see balancing the budget is not simply an act of arithmetic. not just getting expenditures and revenues to add up. it's a means to an end, a healthier society. a progrowth economy that delivers opportunity that. is why we are doing this. host: back with our round table after listening to paul ryan outlining his budget. what did you like? >> i liked his use of cliches.

did you notice lack of specifics of anything? it tells you where he wants to go but it doesn't get you there. there are a lot of things that are minimized. i'll let peter talk about medicare and medicaid. he focused all his attention on the spending side of the budget when revenues are at the lowest point in the last 50 years. guest: we don't agree completely. taxes are high enough. we've raised them. i think the tax burden need to be moved around and adjusted and reformed so everybody has skin in the game and so we don't have the imbalance. we need to fix it. i'm fine with his goals in terms of the overall picture, like a roadmap between new york and los angeles you have a red line going across the country.

but when you drill down, another great one, medicaid, right now the federal government on medicare doesn't do an adequate job of regulating prices. some of the prices are way too high. the drug manufacturers are getting a free ride which on medicare they get a free ride. on medicaid they are somewhat regulated. on medicaid he wants to deal with the high cost by dealing with dividing it up into 50 programs. i'd like to know how 50 state programs will more effectively eal than the one government. every system rationing which is a political hot potato. >> this is why i say deaf to

reason. the federal government is in much better for identification run a regulated healthcare system which will have to do. both of them are what the regulated but ineffectively regulated. >> can we go back to revenues for a second. revenues are 16% of gp. the historical average is 18 or 19%. >> with the tax law changes we've had we'll be at 19% and the historical average over the last 40 years is 18%. guest: i think it's 18.5% but let's not quibble. guest: a lot of people sates not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. the only way it's a spending problem is if you don't raise revenues or refuse to raise

taxes. we've made commitments on medicare and medicaid and defense and we've built interest into the system. we have to decide if we want to keep those commitments. if the sans new york city that's acceptable. if the answer is yes, then revenue versus to go up to pay for it. guest: one of the problems with that point of view is it's easy to raise revenue to deal with the dysfunctions but the dysfunctions we have are a terrible burden on the economy in terms of us competing with the rest of the world. tuss government sector appears small but it's not. in europe the government sector includes healthcare f. you add althcare because it's this shadowy area, then the two government sectors start to look comparable but how inefficient are they? in the united states we spend 12% -- excuse me 18% gp and

rising on health care n. germany where serve covered they have private providers but regulated prices they have 12%. that is something we have to address. host: let me add our vowers to this conversation. tom you are up first for our round table discussion. being both of you are disingenuous. have you the state's debt, the city's debt and all the the debts this country owes, there isn't enough money in the world to pay it back. both sides are playing a smoke and mirs game and the federal reserve is really the problem here. they present billions and billions of dollars intentionally and running the government bubble into the ground. europe is broke, america is

broke and they are purposely doing all of this so that the american people will have no choice fwout accept one world currency and one government, this so-called one world orpped. guest: nonsense. if you are going to believe in conspiracy theerries like that don't quote to do it. we have to reduce the debt, the percentage of debt growing compared to the economy. but one world government, come on, be serious. guest: i agree. we're together. but if we chop off the end single currency one world government, the federal reserve print sog much money and you say that is a good explanation of why and you can get compable people on the other side why it's easy for congressmen like

ryan. you have a conservative republican candidate come out in a two two party district and says our budget does something about that, our debt is getting too big. it's easy to throw that kind of stuff around. ke wise, it's easy for mr. bama to say i don't know why wellingier people shouldn't pay more. the tax increases are not just a few dollars more. guest: the increases in tax it is wealthy were so upset about and said they were going to stop spending hasn't changed their spending at all. guest: i don't agree with you. those people pay quarterly taxes and they haven't come to terms wit. i was in the locker room the other day at my club and people saying how does this affect me. it's complex and it takes a

while for taxes to grip people like that, even ordinary people. they may say that but that doesn't mean it isn't going to have an impact when they start paying. host: we have proffs from the university of maryland and stan collender from roll call. you can follow him on twitter. the budget guy is his handle and peter morici is peter morici 1rks. >> thanks for taking my call. i'd like to make a couple of points which we hear about raising revenue and also entitlement reform and i would like to point out that it seems that we always talk about cutting entitlements, but when i get my paycheck those are the thanges i'm taxed for directly.

have you a special bract for both of those and i think it's absurd we talk about cutting specific programs that we pay specific taxes for. guest: essentially we take money from people's paychecks to finances a retirement program. we are not paying for people's retirement out of money they contributed. we started writing checks for people who had only put money in for a year or less. we made a promise that younger people will support them. as folks in this country have become able to live longer and to be productive longer we've gotten into a situation where the number of people paying into the system versus being paid by the system has shrunk. if we took this gentleman's

money and put it in an anewtty, it wouldn't finances the social security he would get. it's a matter of picking a retirement age that makes sense from the point of view of how long people can work and that is sustainable. the medicare system is more sustainable because in addition to the problem of people getting into it too young, we've got skyrocketing cost and we've got the problem of people between 50 and 65 find themselves without benefits. host: we made a commitment to those promise. i never voted for social security or medicare. is a ref referendum needed now? >> i agree with most of what peter said. the key something you're going to get far back more than you

put in in taxes. you are paying for the program but you are not paying for everything you are going to get and the question is should you or somebody else or nobody and reduce the benefit somehow? the person on twitter is right. he or she didn't vote for it. it was put in the place in the 190's and medicare in the 1960's. these are john going commitments just like he didn't vote to borrow money and we're paying that back year after year. they keep electing incumbents who continue these things so in effect he or she has voted for them. guest: we all have to live with these things. host: friday's "new york times" edition had this article on the front page, medicare shift may lead way to budget pack.

there are talks behind the scenes where president obama perhaps is open to this idea, participants say the president told house republicans he was open to combining medicare aste's coverage for hospitals and drrks services. that would create a single deductable that could create out of pocket cost but could put a cap on their total expenses and reduce the need to buy med gap insurance. what do you think? guest: shell game. it cost too much to take care of elderly people because the prices we pay are higher than anywhere else in the industrialized world. in britain they spend 9% of gp on health care. in the united states going into obama care the federal government was already paying

more than half the federal and state govepls were paying more than half of the healthcare cost. so that means they are putting in about 10% of gp. just based on what they are spending we should be able to provide health care to everybody in the country at the level they do in great britain. it's not great but decent. the problem is we're spending too much money on healthcare and that negotiate of these proposals address the price issue. the prices we pay are just too much. you don't have to pay the folks that look at the x-rays, raid olingses like they played in the nba to get people to want to be aid olingses. guest: your talking about the company that is charge them. guest: you're trying to put the

conservative on defense. guest: no. one of the problems we have is the slice for health care company administration. they are running utilities and we pay them like they are running startups in the silicon valley. the salaries of folks in the executive levels of the healthcare industry are very problematic. i don't know if those companies are profitable compared to other companies like general electric or boeing but they are not paying for those kind of profits or executive salaries or those beerks because they deliver it in a different way. guest: i wasn't attacking you. don't take it personally. guest: you are too much of a gentleman to do that. guest: jackie is a good reporter and i think the key thing about the story, there were two people in the story,

robert bear is one of the best healthcare reporters we've ever had in this country. president obama was suggesting something that eric cantor had already suggested. is there a meet ing of the mind here. this is a frifle of the overall picture as peter was indicating. is it a little bit of a crack? maybe it's a way to begin negotiations. i'd be shocked if that happened before the 2016 election. guest: there are a couple of different ways of coming up with a budget that is acceptable. one is raise revenue and taxes. that only buys you a couple of years because these cost are growing on the healthcare side and on social security side you have how long people are living so it doesn't solve the problem. you can shift things around who pays for them.

higher co-pays for the elderly and so forth. the elderly are stressed financially. we know people who spend their lives in golf resorts. but most of the elderly once they hit around 75, they are stressed financially. and these solutions which shift more and more of the burden to them out of pocket, that's how they are going to pay for things over. host: democratic caller. caller: the more they talk the more i have objection to what they are saying. host: go for it. caller: i'm on social security and i take exception to c-span on this because you hear people talking about social security and maybe we should means test it. it is means tested. up to 85% of my social security is being taxed at my marginal rate. number two, on the healthcare

issue, letting the mutual insurance companies go public it was biggest mistake that anybody ever made because the whole idea is not helping the people that are insured but making profits for the insurance company. host: gene in new york. "new york times" editorial this morning zillions present and future there are senseable ways to reform it but it is not driving the deficit. guest: that is an editorial who was written by a good friend who has been working than for years. i haven't read it yet. let's bring peter into this part of the conversation because this is one of his special tiss. you hear it's not going belly up until 2026 so