♪

>> this also all sorts of priorities. there's a lot of things i think congress was putting off, -- put enough. >> what kind of price tag are we talking about? >> obviously, it is to fund the entire government. they are basically lobbying. i think it will like that slightly be large. that's where you're getting some of this pushback from the defense department in

particular. >> the defense department saying we cannot respond if we are working under the budget that was approved last time. what is your view? >> i think it is a little bit of signifying nothing. fuing available and many of of the larger programs, they are not reliant on the funding they get on an annual basis. frankly, the report about a year and half ago that looked at if it suffers and they found no examples that the dod was put on the back burner. the reality is we have continuing resolutions putting much every year so it's not like it's some sort of new process

they haven't been able to plan for. when you combine the evidence, it makes me think this is not really a legitimate concern. >> after a new congress is elected but before they are seated, it is -- is it unusual? the big spending? >> is a way of cutting down on the lame-duck period. we took two months off that because we have no people traveling to california in old ways of transportation, you tend to get policies where there is less accountability. a lot happens in two years where voters may forget what happened in the lane dock -- lame duck.

the thing like the eca reform that i mentioned. everyone can get their hands in the cookie jar and increase spending in the way they may not otherwise be able to. >> what is the incentive for the party coming into power to agree to big spending on the lame-duck? >> from therein, it is quite obvious, and not -- and that's why you are hearing that. the dod budget is a good example. there are these kinds of priorities and i think there's other things. the electoral count, the spending bill.

this is an enticing time to finalize that. there are certain things, there are certain things of priorities that both parties want. there is a lot more bipartisanship then you might think. the reality is that both parties pass anything ready much these days. there's a lot more agreement. government program here to take your call and upcoming fiscal deadlines. republicans 202-748-8001. >>.

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