represented houston for eight terms now. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: thank you so much for having me. my honor. >> reporters are gathered here in the white house briefing room where we expect the daily briefing with press secretary jen psaki. it was set for 1:00 eastern. it is now supposed to start at 2:30. the house also in recess right now as they continue working on temporary government funning and the infrastructure bill. if the white house briefing starts before the house comes in, we'll show you as much as we can live here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] of the

fiscal year with the senate passed a -- set to pass a short-term measure to find of government through december, and we are joined to talk about congress and government spending by jonathan bydlak with the r street institute, on how congress has handled spending over the years through democratic and republican leadership. welcome. guest: thanks for having me. host: tell us about the r street institute, what is the political point of view of your group and how are you funded? guest: we are a center-right, moderately conservative libertarian group, but we are also pragmatic. we support real solutions. so we try not to be ideological and bias. we tried to follow the data wherever it takes us. so we are funded by foundations, corporations and individuals,

the standard nonprofit. host: how is your reporting used and where is it used? guest: one of the sites i help to run is a spinning tracker.org, which keeps track of what members of congress are doing. rather than kind of taking them at their face value based on the words they say, you can sort of see how things add up. we use that information with staff and members of congress, so they can understand their own voting records, what the implications of their votes are, and get a sense of how their own actions are impacting the situation of the country. host: i have spinning tracker up, looking -- spending tracker up, looking at dollar figures. is that from the senators, what they have voted for? guest: what it does is it looks

at new spending. it takes estimates from the congressional budget office, which is provided to members of congress, and basically says if you vote for something, you get credit for that spending. and if you do not vote for it, then you don't. it gives you a way to compare members with one another and get a sense of whether or not rhetoric matches actions. there's all sorts of things you can learn when you start looking at the data. one of the things that really stands out is there tends not to be much difference between both parties, as you might expect. there is a myth that democrats want to spend a lot in republicans don't, but the reality is regardless of who is president or which party is in power, both parties tend to vote for a lot of spending, and they do so inconsistently.

there's observations like that that you can learn when you look at the data, rather than relying on public statements. host: do you also track the revenue side of that equation? guest: we do not on spending tracker, but we do in spreadsheets. one interesting question is what of the ultimate impact on the national debt. ultimately, spending is the biggest part of the equation. if you look at how members, how debt scores compare with their spending scores, they are highly correlated, more than 90%. by looking at spending, you are getting the biggest part of the picture of the debt impact. but we also look at revenue. there can be times, the tax cut and a jobs act being the most recent example, where it had a very large impact on the national debt as well.

host: we saw your piece in the american spectator online this week, the headline was "the republicans fiscal responsibility peter. -- theater." what was your point? guest: both parties have a habit of voting for a a lot of spending and i think that we have heard a lot this week in response to the debt limit, how it needs to be raised, how it is only by democrats because they are proposing new spending. it's true that the package at the administration has put forward is very large, and of course comes on the heels of a host of other large packages, largely because of covid relief. but the debt limit has been raised 49 times since 1960 by republican presidents, 29 times

by democratic presidents. and the other point we make is i think that there is this perception that the debt limit, or voting to not increase it, stops spending. but that is not the case. that's basically akin to running up your credit card after you already spent the money. so that does not actually solve anything, you still have all this spending that you have accrued. most countries do not do it this way. they have fiscal rules that they impose, but i think that the way that we think about spending and fiscal matters in this country is often times backwards. and the debates we see you now do not actually reflect the reality of what would happen if we did not vote to increase the debt. host: are we destined to always having to raise the debt ceiling, by congressional action obviously, basically forever?

as spending goes, that keeps climbing. will we ever be able to reduce that? guest: there are certainly changes that could be made. most countries do not have a process like this. i believe it is only denmark and poland that have a similar debt measure limit like this. most countries actually have rules where they limit spending or revenue on the front end. so, they say you cannot increase spending beyond a certain point based on what your expected revenues are. there has been much written about sweden, switzerland and at the fiscal rules others use. there are other states -- they have rules similar, colorado the most famous. so, theoretically there are alternative rules congress can decide to utilize. but again, there seems to not be a lot of want for that kind of

thinking because, first of all, different parties, depending on the political situation at the moment, they gain by engaging in these public fights and scoring public points based on these kinds of very public battles. but, for the time being, i think that what -- i think that that is what we are destined to have. it is interesting in that it was originally imposed in 1917, during world war i, when congress got tired of having to constantly approve new bond limits. so this was meant as a way to enable more debt, basically allow the treasury to issue debt without permission from congress. but now here we are more, than 100 years later, and we think of the debt limit as a restraint on spending and fiscal moves.

but that was not the purpose at all. we would benefit from rethinking how we approach debt limits. host: we are talking about government spending on this last day of the fiscal year. jonathan bydlak is our guest from the r street institute. 202-748-8000 is the line for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. i want to read a headline from "the hill." nancy pelosi rules out raising the debt limit who we conciliation, saying the democrats will not use it to raise the federal debt ceiling. raising doubts over whether congress can find a way to avert an economic disaster. jonathan bydlak, as republicans are having the democrats do this debt ceiling raise all by themselves, this is something we have not seen before, correct? guest: the argument is that the

democrats have a majority in the house, and a majority in the senate, so to a degree they can raise the debt limit, and they should be able to do so based on the votes they have. that argument is a little facetious, because it does not address the new spending being proposed by the administration, being opposed by the republicans. historically, as i said in my piece you referenced, we have always raised the debt limits. so there is a level of confidence on both sides that they can play these games from time to time, but at the end of the day they will figure out a way to raise the debt limit. but that is not without consequence. there's this thing that the private sector likes or does not like uncertainty.

we have this set up where we are reliant on elected officials, whose political incentives are not always in line with what is best for their constituents. and you end up in a situation where you create market turmoil, or general uncertainty that can have real consequences for, not just markets, but individuals, americans who are reliant upon the state of the u.s. economy. host: what is your assessment of the $1 trillion infrastructure package, the 3.5 trillion dollars social program package, the build back better plan, as it has been called? guest: it is a lot of money, no getting around it. there's no question that the last couple years, and beyond the pandemic, there has been the attitude that we can spend whatever we want and not think about the consequences because we have been in an emergency

situation at the moment. so, i think that many people can acknowledge that there was a federal rule, -- how it's spent is a different question -- but most people would acknowledge that this is reasonable. but has changed at the dialogue where to some degree both parties, at the moment it is democrats in power, think that they can continue to spend not just on things related to the pandemic, but now on a whole host of things. as was talked about previously, there's general agreement, at least some support on both sides, for spending on infrastructure. but president joe biden is a new president, he has an agenda and he wants to see that agenda enacted, so he is willing to support large amounts of spending on all kinds of wish list items, regardless of the

fiscal consequences. you cannot divorce this kind of legislation from the broader fiscal picture that we are facing. so, i wish members with think harder about if the spending should be offset, looking for cuts elsewhere, but that tends not to be the way that people in washington are thinking. host: let's hear from jerry in somerset, kentucky on the independent line. caller: yes, there's two things on government spending i am hearing people talk about. if you take a congested road, t wo lanes, and turn it into a four lane road, you decrease the fuel that it takes to get from point a to b.

but if a trucking company that is using the roads, it can make things more competitive. and if those products are going overseas, it will make it more competitive in those foreign markets, which will reduce the deficit. can you speak to that? guest: there are benefits to infrastructure, we all acknowledge that we need infrastructure. i do not think that is up for debate. the question is what is the best way of building and repairing the infrastructure that we need and that we have. i think it is an open question whether or not the federal government is suited to, you know, to be sort of the funder of the infrastructure spending. most infrastructure spending occurs at the state level, or is undertaken by the private sector or localities. and generally speaking, that has served us well.

that i think is the question. it's not enough to say that we need roads or trains, the question for policymakers should be, what is the best and most efficient way of using the resources we have to build roads, repair the roads that we need? that is the open question. to reiterate what i said earlier, you cannot make these kinds of decisions divorced from the fiscal reality that we are dealing with as well. that's another point that is important. host: on the democrats line, in california, terri. caller: good morning. i find -- i will make a statement then ask a question -- that when we talk about deficit spending, earlier you talked about the reduction in the tax rate for corporations, which

basically has been reduced down to almost -- we find most citizens are paying higher rates in taxes than proctor and gamble, or coca-cola, for example. tha has alsot -- that has also added to the debt. but what i find interesting is the fight is always at the republicans going and saying, oh no, we are doing all this deficit spending, when four years ago we created a a lot of debt by reducing what we did to corporate spending. you can go back to clinton, it really started, then with the bush. look at what happened under obama. so, i am trying to figure out, we talk about the deficit spending or you also find that if we build up the

infrastructure, because right now we are in turmoil with our electrical grid. we are not updated at all on cyber. so, we need those things. what do you think we should do? it's not being spent at the state level, they need federal funding. guest: i think that the caller makes a good point, comparing what has happened in the trump administration to spending before and now. deb ist caused by -- debt is caused by two things, revenue going up and down, so obviously there will be fiscal impacts when you reduce taxes, just like when you increase spending. one point that has been missed, you know, president trump spent more than president obama before him, who was opposed a lot by the republicans for the levels

of spending we saw in his administration. in the first two years of obama's time in office, he signed into law $2.2 trillion in new spending. when you think about the stimulus, which was a very opposed by the republicans. president trump, in his first two years, he signed a $2.3 trillion in new spending, and that was before the covid packages. so, the -- i think the legacy here, that is not talked about by either side, is again, the fiscal problems we are dealing with are very much caused on a bipartisan basis. and to a large degree, though legacy that president trump will have is he did not do anything to get spending under control. and a lot of the opposition that existed on the republican side

of the aisle during the obama administration, basically evaporated when president trump started spending. so, i think democrats do not talk about that because now they get into office and they want to be able to spend themselves and they do not want to be called out for that record, but i think it is a point that we should recognize. often times, when people talk about president trump, they focus on the tax cuts and jobs act in terms of the impact on the deficit, but the real reason there is so much spending was the spending side of the ledger. host: you hear the argument on the floor, that member say you are asking for a new spending, but some has already been authorized in the covid relief legislation, the measures passed last year during the trump administration, and money passed earlier this year. how much does the r street

institute follow or track that spending, the money that has been authorized but not spent? guest: we do, but there are other organizations that that is what they focus on. it is an interesting point because it highlights how a lot of the spending we have seen has not been targeted in the way that we would like. as taxpayers or citizens, we should look at that situation and say, why are we spending or allocating all this money that cannot even actually be spent? we should be trying to target that money as directly as possible to the actual problem that we are trying to solve. and i think that, again, the issue you are talking about points to a broader attitude change on how we think about the

government's finances, whereby we are willing to throw the money out the door and not have any sort of accountability. so, i think that there are two sides or two important points to remember when you talk about finances. one is to think about, does this amount makes sense. the second part of that is once you allocate spending, you need to have a level of accountability. and often times congress has gone and just completely advocated their oversight responsibility when it comes to the money that has been shuffled out the door. host: we will hear from oklahoma city next, barbara on the independent line. caller: hi, i have a question and a comment. i want to ask, did you know that trump -- all the time? do you know that? guest: i could not hear you. host: barbara, can you repeat that?

caller: do you know that trump hires illegals? host: i do not know if you want to respond. guest: that might be. i do not know about when he has been in the private sector. host: let's hear from tennessee on the republican line, floyd. caller: two farmers got their tax bills and they are whining about how the property tax was. they have adult kids, and i asked -- so somebody else owned the property, paid the taxes and educated your kids. local tax pays our law enforcement and education system . and when rich people do not want to pay taxes, the community suffers. that's an anecdote for you.

guest: thank you. nobody doubts, of course, taxes exist and always will. one, from a policy standpoint, what is the appropriate level to be able to pay for the services we all need? and so there is nobody that will refute that point. the other point is we need to think about what is actually feasible with the debt that we are dealing with. the level of a wealth tax, for example, is something like 34%. that would be impossible to collect. so, there is an element of math where you can have a discussion about the degree to which reductions in spending and increases in revenue should be part of the solution to our

fiscal problem, but you have to recognize the math of the situation and the reality is the bulk of the situation has been caused by overspending more than revenue being below historical levels. host: let's hear from mike in los angeles. a democrat. mike in los angeles, go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: lynn you talk about some of these -- when you talk about some of the problems we are having with infrastructure spending, in my opinion it is based on an old mindset. what kind of -- we are embarrassing ourselves as a nation when we have these other countries that have evolved. when you hear people use metaphors like, we should think about it like a credit card and you have to learn how to budget, those are old. we have not overhauled our

infrastructure since eisenhower. when you say it should be done at a state level, that is the problem we are having. we need a different mindset. not to mention we have climate and global warming that is facing us in the eye, and some of these things are so problematic that it is not just about roadways and the internet, it is so much bigger now. and as a country we are not able to move on in our mindset, we are not able to embrace the real problems. yet, people need help with childcare and that kind of thing. people are stuck on this. and republicans are good at saying, it is not about bridges and trains -- yes, there is other stuff now. guest: well, i think it is not

an unreasonable point. we have to think about with the federal role should be and there may be the opportunity for the federal government to contribute to that. i think the question is, though, again, what is the appropriate federal role and are they the entity best suited to actually engage in infrastructure spending that we may need? that is an open question. the washington post itself has highlighted that our infrastructure is not as crumbling as is often talked about. that's it reported that has been put out by civil engineers. >> we'll leave this here and take you back live to the u.s. house. 2021, the honorable the s, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8,