guest: so, there is all sorts of other priorities. the electoral reforms. we saw the bill yesterday. we have a lot of things i think congress is putting off they sort of all cramming into this quickly shortening lame duck period. host: in terms of an omnibus what, kind of price tag are we talking about here if that's what does come together? guest: that's the big wild card. i don't think anyone knows at this point. obviously it's to fund the entire government. there will be significant increase. you have a lot of government departments were inflationary

environments. guest: the talk is he will support solutions for the entire year. host: the pushback is the dependent men -- the pushback is the department of justice saying , what is your view on solution? guest: they are not reliant on the funding they have.

the doj did a report do they suffer under solution. . they were not getting a lot of funding. they have continuing solutions again every year. it is not a new process they have been able to plan for. when you combine evidence from gao, it makes me think this is not a legitimate concern. host: is this unusual it would be a big spending? guest: the amendment in the 1930's is a way of cutting down. the constitution says it took two months off of that.

traveling from california. the goal then was to reduce the period. you can get policy that reduces accountability. it has become this time where it might not be the political will to do. the other problem, you have a lot of these big spending priorities. get their hands in the cookie jar and increase spending. host: when the chamber of congress changes hand, what is the incentive? guest: the democrats have the majority and they are losing house.

that is why you are hearing that messaging on the republican side. there are certain things republicans want to see funded. there are other things of a reversal in opinion in the republican party. there is something that people in the republican party want to see past. there are certain things where, if you look at their spending record and what they vote for, it shows a lot of bipartisanship. you generally have to have some level of bipartisanship. especially when congress is so close. host: jonathan bydlak is our

guest. he is here to take your questions. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. guest: we try to present a limited government perspective and solutions to policies based in washington. we try to make congress a better . to bring congress into the new century. trying to work better together so we get better policies. host: what is spending tracker?

guest: it is a site that takes estimates with the voting records of -- it takes estimates and cross-references with the voting records of congress. it is a really great resource. they say one thing and perhaps do something different with their vote. on fiscal bills, how they compare to reality. host: this is tracking spending. how much are we up to? guest: asking for $37 billion

this time around. mitch mcconnell being a part of that list, once republicans take over, they may not have the votes in the house to take over in the future. this is a priority for many members.

host: when did that hit? guest: it doesn't hit until next year. the limit beyond which congress has been successfully approved the ability to borrow, a lot of democrats are concerned republicans might hold the debt limit hostage. by not raising the debt limit given we have a democratic president next year. there is an argument to be made that many of the debt we have gotten is in the context. i don't particularly think of that as a strong argument. the budget control act of 2011 is a great example. we had cap on spending.

there were times when the budget cap was raised. there is a lot of evidence we had more response under president obama and a republican congress that we hadn't had that deal in 2010. host: coming out of kentucky, republican, susan, you are on the line. caller: when people say there is going to be a government shutdown, how many government people are going to be shut down? guest: there are parts of the government deemed essential and we have increasing amounts deemed essential over time. there are certain times that are

shut down and sudden that are not. it is not like everything in washington is immediately shut down. we know from past experience there is this willingness to be a political shutdown. you close national parts -- you close national parks. how it plays out in practice, there is more discretion than we would like to admit. host: a christian from tillman on twitter, what is the government seeing as the biggest cost reduction in the last decade? he also wants to know what program has grown the most. guest: when you look at why the national debt has expanded so

drastically, one is entitlement spending or direct spending. you have programs on autopilot. they are not voted on by a unified congress on an annual basis so you end up having a significant increase in the national debt. that has been a troubling issue and something i wish members of both sides would come together and address. we have had other countries, deal with it and come together. host: how did they deal with it? guest: they imposed fiscal rules that restricted how much they were able to spend based on how much tax revenue they had coming in. switzerland is perhaps the gold standard. switzerland has a great fiscal discipline.

they tend to be very responsible with the country's finances. it limits what they are able to spend and not go beyond. there are other portions of the budget, when we think about the budget for the pentagon, we are seeing it is plausible to think we would be over a trillion dollars in a short amount of time. that is mind-boggling we will be spending over a trillion dollars on the pentagon in an annual basis. this needs to be addressed outside the mandatory spending. host: rebecca on twitter, the pentagon cannot pass an audit. they have been trying for three years. what is going on with that? guest: before you could go get

your spending under control you need to know where it is going. other parts of the government are required to do an audit. it is something people are familiar with. i would much rather, i think it is a great starting point that members from both sides, regardless of the topline budget , the pentagon should be. it brings people together. there generally has been a lot of support on both sides of the aisle. there is resistance anytime you're going with an agency to reform. host: independent line, you are on jonathan bydlak. caller: is there any truth the government still gets paid when they have a shut down? guest: it depends.

there are certain people who are deemed essential. usually the government always reopens and we tend to go and new people, when the government was shut down. in the short term, they are paying for workers not getting a paycheck. they end up getting their money at the end of the day. host: at the end of the year, tax extenders, efforts to extend various tax loopholes, is that happening again this year? guest: a lot of people want to see that kind of stuff. that is plausible. the laundry list of things people want to be addressed is getting longer by the day. the time period is getting

shorter. host: what are some of the taxes you have tracked in the past? guest: when you look at why washington has the problem with the national debt we do, it is driven so much more by the spending ledger by -- then by the tax side. when you look at biden's record over the last two years, he has spent more, set in motion more spending president trump did in his last two years at the height of the covid pandemic. president trump was the biggest spending president more than president obama or president bush. now you move into the new presidency. president biden has continued the legacy that existed was president trump. a lot of things were covert related in the early stage of

his presidency, but we have had other things like infrastructure, the chips act, all these other bills. even the inflation reduction act increases in spending over time. the tax side doesn't affect the budget. reducing revenue has a significant impact on the national debt. the true driver is largely our bipartisan willingness to continue to spend. host: the comparison with the trump administration and the biden administration, in the last two years -- guest: in the last two years, about $3.3 trillion in spending. you contrast that now with the biden administration, it is over 3.7 trillion. we are in a much different stage in the pandemic, we don't have the need to be spending in this way.

we have had these other priorities. the biden administration so far has borrowed $4.8 trillion. that is because it is not spending that has been voted on in congress. but also executive orders. when you look at loan forgiveness or changes to the snap program, these things are very expensive. you have this very significant spending legacy. inflation is a concern for the majority of americans. this fiscal policy is not the only part of that, but is a significant policy of that. you want the fiscal policy to be working together with monetary policy. we have the federal reserve raising rates in washington still spending -- that creates a disconnect. host: john in pennsylvania,

democrat, good morning. go ahead. you're on with jonathan bydlak. caller: yes, democrat. host: what is your question or comment? caller: i would like to see the -- facing public tax. they boast about military. host: for the rich to pay more taxes? caller: their fair share, not more. host: what do you consider fair share? caller: i pay federal taxes every week out of my paycheck. i don't know. the american people would like to see some of that. host: jonathan bydlak what is a fair share? guest: the irs came out last week on who was paying taxes.

for the first time in our nations history, the top 2% of wage owners paid more than 50% of income taxes in this country. the 2% is paying more than 50%. there is a little bit of a disconnect between what people think and what they may actually be paying. most of us agree there is a rationale for a progressive tax system. the spending, the expenditures we have ours so dramatic. there is only so much squeezing of the income -- that you can do. you have a choice that is going to become increasingly important. it either you have to start to go and restrain and be more responsible on the expenditure side or you are going to have to raise taxes not only on the wealthy but the middle class.

to be able to go and pay for a lot of these programs. sometimes the perception to what the actual tax base looks like is radically different from what it actually is. host: jonathan bydlak. democrats, if you want to join the conversation, (202) 748-8000 . republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. social security depletion date is -- what should occur and what politician or party wants to address it? guest: the reality is, nobody wants to address it. there are other countries that have similar arrangements. that have actually managed to go and get their fiscal house in order. when you see cases where social democrats have been able to come

together in those places and make the kind of reforms that are necessary, unfortunately in this country we have had to do so because the issues are third rail. there are a lot of things. we could talk for hours on it. in the health-care space, that is one of the areas government is the most heavily involved. there is a lot of evidence to be less involved to have an impact on health care costs. health care spending in general is going up dramatically. many of the things the government is involved in the most are the things we are seeing in areas where prices are going down, it seems to be less involved. on social security, it is largely a money in and money out problem.

like many other things, we only have a couple of choices. it is either raise taxes or change the way and if it's are being paid out. the latter is probably the better way to go. the reality is that social security was not intended to be a source of income for 40 plus years when it was instituted. that is a reason we are having a lot of these challenges we are having now. unfortunately not raising the retirement age, there is no way to do that without substantial increases in payroll taxes. host: to the evergreen state, this is evan, democrat. it good morning. caller: i want to talk about this discussion this morning. you said republicans want more military spending. but it is ok to spend on ukraine. republicans are huge hypocrites

on that. 50% more on social spending than the united states does. the difference between united states and france is france can make -- guest: it is important to recognize the united states is generally much wealthier than any european country. there is a trade-off. if you have more generous social spending but generally speaking, people in europe are worse off economically speaking that they are in the united states. that is not to say there is not a huge hardship. generally speaking we are in a better position. the trade-off we have made as a country, with respect to the pentagon budget, i agree with you. we should be applying the same kind of fiscal responsibility in other parts of the government to

the pentagon is well. there has generally been this attitude that spending on the pentagon and resulting in making a safer international defense outcome. i don't think that is true. i would argue imposing a budget constraint forces you to more stringently consider what your priorities are and to weigh those trade-offs more effectively. talking about the farm bill or the department of education, as well as the department of defense. it was something that people wanted for a number of purposes. they didn't scope it out as well as they should have. many of these programs the cost has increased dramatically. now we are in this bucket where on the one hand, it is far more expensive to start over. we are constantly dealing with a

claim that cannot -- a plane, tongue-in-cheek, that cannot fly. that is a classic example where we really need to go. the planning at the front end is so important to ensure these cost overruns don't happen. host: democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: good, go ahead. caller: there is a pie chart in the back of the federal income tax book. personal income tax, social security, medicare and unemployment taxes bring in a 45% of our income. income tax is only 3% of what we take in. how come corporate income tax is not higher? guest: sometimes people look at

the corporate income tax and they think, people are here and corporations are over there. the reality, in many cases, corporate tax passes along to consumers. it is not clear we would be better off by raising the corporate tax. we have many businesses now that can choose where they are based. the ability to be competitive on the world stage is driven by your corporate tax rate. there are a lot of other factors to consider beyond the short-term. it is not obvious over the long term raising the corporate income tax, would ultimately result in more money to the government if you had more businesses moving overseas or the ability to pass those taxes off to consumers. host: jonathan bydlak is the wa.

host: the past four respect for marriage act and to talk about other issues impacting the lgbtq community, the director of the lgbtq task force. what exactly does this legislation do? guest: it makes sure those who have gotten married, that right is respected at the federal level and the state level. government recognition and acknowledgment of marriages between all people, including same-sex. host: how does it do that? guest: it creates an opportunity for interstate recognition. it creates an opportunity for if the supreme court overturns windsor, it puts a protection in

place that says regardless of what happens, these marriages are protected. host: repealed the 1970 mayor jack. it does that overturn the defense of marriage jack? -- marriage act? guest: it doesn't overturn but it makes it inoperable. basically insurance to ensure if the supreme court does decide to try to go there, these marriages and these families are protected. host: if the supreme court were to decide to go there, and this marriage act were not signed into law, what would happen? guest: at that point the states decide if they are going to allow marriages between two same gender loving people and whether or not they are going to recognize those.

without the respect for marriage act, these marriages wouldn't be respected. these marriages would not be accessible to those couples. host: the religious liberty protections, explain what those were about. guest: some of the amendments offered, there is already language in the respect for marriage act that protects religious freedom. it doesn't change any constitutional rights related to religious freedom. that is why we saw so much support for this bill in the first place and why we saw these amendments host: along the way. host:host: phone numbers to call in in this segment, (202) 748-8000 democrats,.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. in a special line for those who identify as lgbtq, (202) 748-8003. 12 republicans joining democrats to pass this legislation. this is where senator chuck schumer was on the floor talking about the legislation. [video clip] >> today's vote is deeply personal for many of us in this chamber. it is personal for me, it is personal to many of my colleagues and their staff and their families. while we still have a few more votes to take today, it is joy and relief. let's remember nothing about this process was certain. remember, mr. president, it was our original plan to act on the respect for marriage act in september, shortly after the

house voted to pass this bill over the summer with a surprising 47 republicans voting for the act. we knew this bill was top-tier. we knew it was the right thing to do. what we did not know was whether or not we had enough support, 60 votes to pass this bill through the senate. maybe the votes would materialize if we were forced to vote on the floor, but that was highly unlikely. for a great number of us, for so much of america, this bill was too important to risk failure. back in september, when i met with the leaders of this bill in my office, they recommended i hold off on a vote because they believed they could secure enough support for this bill. many questioned if it was the right thing to do. many on my side of the aisle.

sometimes they say that is the way to go. but at the end of the day, my number one priority is to always get : legislation passed through the senate so i made the decision to take the risk pushing respect for marriage over the finish line at patience, persistence and today it is paying off. host: senator chuck schumer on the senate floor yesterday. guest: we are basically waiting for this bill to go to the house. we have our fingers crossed. a whole bunch of prayers going proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. adoption house joint resolution 100. and agreeing to house concurrent resolution