view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the days events with floor proceedings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more, all at your fingertips. also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio app, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store, google play, download it for free now. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪

>> buckeye broadband support c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> good morning we are back with bipartisan policy center senior vice president william hoagland he is discussing the debt limit, the debate over how to raise it and more on how the u.s. amassed a $31 trillion debt, good morning. william hoagland. tell us more about the bipartisan policy center and the work you are doing to educate people about debt and deficit. guest: the bipartisan policy

center was established 15 years ago by 4 former majority leaders of the u.s. senate, the late senator bob dole and howard baker, then tom mitchell. as the name would imply, there is something called a bipartisan policy center. we tried to approach major issues and find common ground, because we do believe some of the most sustainable types of policy in this country are those done in a bipartisan way. tough issues as it relates to -- we cover a number of areas including ing-wen migration and health care issues but on fiscal policy issues we have developed a reputation for that organization that provides an independent assessment as to this issue we are dealing with today called the x date when the

federal government will exhaust all of its resources available to pay its bills. host: i know it is a not certain date. it shifts. what do you think the x date is right now and what are the factors that contribute? guest: the factors that impact this are the uncertainties associated with the economy, the level of revenues coming in, the level of expenditures going out. these very. the federal government pays monthly something like $80 million in checks. this checks go out. sometime between june and september, later may be this week or early next week we will

update our estimate. janet yellen will also do her estimate to update. there is some indication that the revenues that came in when we paid our taxes on april 15 that those of the news that came in were -- that those revenues were less than expected. we will refine this. it is a difficult estimate to make because we have to take into account all of these uncertainties and all of these issues we cannot anticipate, whether it is a withdrawal on fema for a disaster, another covid. those are things that would change that estimate dramatically. host: we are talking to bill hoagland from the bipartisan policy center about the national debt. i want to give our viewers and listeners the numbers to call in with any comments or questions

you may have. democrats, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you are a republican, we want you to call us at (202) 748-8001 . independents, (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls in just a moment. in addition to what you do with the center, have a long career on capitol hill. you are no stranger to this debate on the debt ceiling. how do you see it playing out in the current congress over the coming weeks and months? guest: that is good question. this is deja vu in many ways. i have seen this movie before. this one is a little more scary from my perspective as opposed to the first time i dealt with the debt limit issue, when i was staff director of the budget staff committee in 1985.

it was brought about by a situation where we had at this time a republican in the white house, and a republican-controlled senate, and a democratic-controlled house. we were dealing with an issue -- we passed a budget resolution in the senate, and the budget resolution had passed by one vote. the elder bush president was vice president at the time. that budget was to reduce a deficit at that time, which was $200 million. long story short, that particular budget went to the house, and it included in the senate the very controversial budget resolution because it had

a one-year freeze on social security, and it reduced president reagan's defense request. it went to the house and the house -- my boss at that time senator dole was undercut by president reagan who said they would not support that. it caused a lot of controversy for republicans who had stretched, put their next on the line to try and reduce the deficit. that led to the next step, which was there was a movement by senator redmond in the senate, senator phil gramm to say, we will come up in october of 1985, we will have to increase the statutory debt limit $2 trillion. that was not that long ago. host: 35 years ago the national

debt was $2 trillion. guest: now we are at $35 trillion. here we go again. we are not going to vote to raise that debt limit again, which includes 50 votes in the senate, unless we have a change in our fiscal policies. i that resultedn -- that resulted in grant- redmond-hollings where we set caps on spending, and if spending -- that resulted in gramm-redmond-hollings where. we said caps on spending -- we set caps on spending. we.

-- we can argue. i don't think it was as successful as people thought. if put mechanisms in place that led to 1990 agreements and more importantly with mr. clinton and 1997 further negotiations. that required negotiations. i know and i respect the president. i worked with him when he was a senator here. i respect the process. i think you have to negotiate. i am a little worried about this game of chicken up to the limit. it will have a major economic impact, not only domestically but globally if the federal government for the first time in its history has defaults on paying its bills. that would be a real disaster

for republicans and democrats i believe. host: we will be talking about that more with you. before we get to the phone lines, can you explain what is the difference between the debt and the deficit? guest: good point. we sometimes assume people understand this. a deficit is an annual difference between your spending and your revenue, so as an example today we have a deficit for the current fiscal year of about $1 trillion -- $980 billion. if you go back to the beginning of the republic and add up all of the deficits against when we had surpluses that would be cumulative. debt is the accumulation of

deficits from the beginning of the republic to today. host: i am showing on my computer the u.s. debt clock.org, which is taking away. -- usdebtclock.org,which is ticking away. let's go to our phone lines. first is naomi. caller: my question is i have heard from the republican side that biden has done little to reduce the deficit, and i have heard from the democratic side that trump, our former mr. trump

who i am not in favor of, increased the deficit tremendously during his number of years as president, and that biden has reduced that deficit substantially despite the war in ukraine, despite covid, despite a tremendous number of things going on in the world, which the united states has had to take part in. i believe we need to support ukraine. we need to do anything we can at this point. democracy is under assault. it was under assault on january 6. there is no disputing that. i have tremendous fears related to trump in particular regaining

the white house. i don't see that happening, but should that occur, even if he should run, i think we are going to have major problems regarding election denial again, which was proven through the courts i don't know how many times. more than 60, i believe, that there was no tampering. there -- dominion has just won its lawsuit. host: naomi, we are going to let bill respond to the point she made about the difference in spending. guest: naomi, this -- maybe this is no surprise coming from somebody, even though i work for

republicans here in the senate for many years, this is a bipartisan problem. we used to say that the first law of economics is scarcity is real. the first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics. this increased debt and deficit we have is a result of democratic and republican policies over the years. when you said that biden had reduced the deficit, he reduced the deficit. the deficit came down from -- this is the annual deficit in 2020. it was $3.1. the deficit has gone from 3 down to about $1 trillion coming off of covid.

the problem is that is the deficit, it is not the debt. the total continues to grow. the debt has grown under this administration. it is not just a this administration, you have to go back quite a few years. this has been going on for a long time. some of the programs we have, on the books today such as social security, medicare, created many years ago under the roosevelt administration, under the johnson administration, expansion of the food stamp program under the nixon administration, those programs are on the books and they are creating a draw on our spending. this is a combination of a number of policies, but the republican and democrat over the years. it is not just one administration that is responsible for the level of

debt we have today. it is a culmination of many, many years of policies we have established where we are unable to pay for our expenditures. host: i will pull up on the screen. you mentioned that the washington post did 9 key moments of the national debt in certain things like e sh tax cu, dicare part d, which was prescription drug coverage added in 2006, the 2000 a recession and response under president obama, the obama gop deal to extend bush tax cuts, which was wrapped up in a debt ceiling discuson in 2013, the trump tax cuts of 2017 and bipartisan spending deals under trump, the coronavirus pandemic response --

that was $5.3 trillion -and- the biden economic agenda is another $2.7 trillion. that is over the last 20 years or so, key points that addressed or extended the national debt. let's go back to the phone lines now. we have gary on the line in sterling, virginia. guest: thank you. i have three asks for c-span. could you ask elon musk to come on and tell us what he wants twitter to be? does he want it to be a bastion of common sense or something else? can you ask brian what ike said to the evangelist when they

asked him to be anti-bush? can you look up in late february of '78 or '79 those press releases in the washington post on climate change? now to the debt limit. i would like to ask mcconnell what is to be learned the fourth kick of the mule? the times we did this under obama i lost 12%, 18%. last time was when moody's five-star rating was lost. then ask jim jordan and kevin mccarthy whether or not they are going to dig the keystone pipeline by hand.

kevin said 500,000 jobs were lost and jim jordan said 40,000 or 50,000 jobs were lost. they must be digging that thing by hand! thank you for letting me share. guest: i cannot comment on the latter comments about mr. jordan and others, but i will say as it relates to where we are today, i think it is clear that we have not really had the senate weigh in. mr. mcconnell and mr. schumer have been through this exercise a number of times. yes, just because the house passed its legislation last week, it is not clear that that legislation -- it is clear that, that legislation is not

going anywhere in the senate. as i say, i believe that compromise is the way you move forward. it will be pretty difficult, but to your other point, yes this is dangerous for investors. this is dangerous for the overall economy. this is dangerous for ur standing in the world -- four r ou standingr in the world. -- this is dangerous for our standing in the world. it is dangerous for you and your investments if we do not find a solution for this quickly. host: next up is tracy in denton, maryland on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: thank you. i wanted to mention that i can remember when reagan came on the

tv and he said that we all need to tighten their belts because -- tighten our belts because we have a deficit. i don't know why presidents don't just come on tv and tell us the truth. i can remember when president bush gave back money, $300, to all of us. i was thinking why doesn't he just save that for a rainy day? i don't understand the mentality of not being fiscally responsible. guest: i guess thank you. my response to that is you are right. it behooves our elected officials to be honest with the american public and to be very transparent. i'm not running for office. i don't have to talk to any

constituents out there, but the discussion on spending, if it was to be an honest discussion, would not be focused on the 13% of federal spending that basically is what was in the house bill last week, which is what we call the nondefense discretionary budget. what is really driving spending in this country, unfortunately, our the third rails of politics. let's be clear -- social security, medicare, medicaid. those are some of the fast excluding paying interest on the public debt. they are the fastest growing. as you know, president biden, and i am disappointed in his position on this, goes before the state of the union address and bates the republicans in the house and do saying that social

security and medicare were off the table. let's be honest. if we do not make changes in those programs in the future, that will result in social security trust fund exhausting in the year 2033. if that happens, there will be reductions from what people thought they were going to get in social security. there will be reductions in medicare payments. if you are being honest with the american public on the spending side, you need to talk to them straight up about entitlements that have been on the books. these go back this for trump and biden and obama. these major entitlement programs have been on the books for a long time. now wes are seeing the

consequence of the expenditure -- now we are seeing the consequences of the expenditures. there are areas in which we can be better at spending than we are, but unless you are willing to tell the american public what is the real drivers of spending, let's take the other side of the equation. let's not pass this debt onto our future generation. let's talk about another third rail of politics. maybe we should start paying for the benefits we enjoy today. that is taxes, unfortunately. host: difficult positions new layout for our elected officials. we did get a text message from robert in atlanta, georgia. he writes, "what is the total debt owed to the u.s. by other countries?" guest: that is a good question. it has changed over time, but

about 40% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors. i had a friend that used to say we are the best looking horse in the glue factory. the point being we are secure in terms of paying our interest on our debt. that is an important question. china, japan, europe, investors like our bills and they invest. the issue i raise here is that could change pretty dramatically, if we do not raise the debt limit and pay those interest on the borrowings going forward. today it is about 30% to 40% of

the debt held by the public is owned by foreign investors. host: let's go to mark in annapolis, maryland on the republican line. what is your question or comment, mark? caller: just a quick couple of comments related to sources and uses, what can be done related to expanding exports of traditional carbon-based fuels, net drug gas, oil -- fuels, natural gas, oil, we also have alternative energy technologies helping with raising funds, it also on the spending side, really a clear view of extending social security ages.

basically targeting 72 as an eligible age for collecting social security. when these were put in place in the 30's the eligibility age was probably 2 to 3 years beyond the mortality age. the mortality age was 60 in 19 34. mortality age -- the collection age was 63, 62. guest: first of all, i cannot comment on the first part of your question about the expansion of trade. certainly, i believe in free trade, and i believe there is always the opportunity to increase our exports. that would have a beneficial effect on the economy, and

therefore increase opportunities of income and raise revenues. as far as its impact on the rising debt limit, it would not have much of an impact. here we go again on social security. the bipartisan policy center has looked at this. we had a major commission that focused on it with former members of congress as well as former trustees of the social security fund, and we looked at this issue. we would take the position that you took, mark. when the age was established at 65, and we went through an exercise in the 1980's where we were faced with that trust fund being depleted, and there was an effort made at that particular time, senator dole, senator monahan, alan greenspan, we did modify the age of eligibility by

pushing it out from 65 to 67, maintaining early retirement at 62. the work we put together agrees with you that we should be looking at adjusting that 67 as longevity increases. unfortunately, the last few years longevity has declined not increased due to the opioid issues we have out there. , long story short, i think there are ways in which you can extended social security, make it more valuable without jeopardizing the benefits for those who want to work longer and receive social security. it cannot be just on the age adjustment though. you have to modify the formula. protecting the lower income that receive social security, social

security is a major poverty reduction program for our elderly and i think we should continue to retain that, but there are ways in which you can continue to modify this program. one aspect of it was on the spending side. we may have to seriously consider some form of an update in the payroll tax to make the program -- host: next on the line is sergio in florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? guest: good morning. host: good morning. caller: good morning, william. how are you, sir? guest: good morning. caller: how did this $31

billion, $31 trillion debt start in the first place? how can we be self independent like we used to be in the 70's and what have you from china and whatnot? how can we correct that problem? i believe that president biden is doing a hell of a job keeping our country and prosperity and so forth. he got rid of covid and everything. he is doing a hell of a job. the republicans are holding our economy hostage. that needs to stop. how can we work together like they used to back in the day? guest: your question is one that haunts me daily. i work here in the capital for many years, and it was a

different environment than we see today. we have a very polarized environment, so i do not have any simple solutions to that. there are some thoughts i have, but i will hold them to the side. let me say in terms of how did we get here, as i said this is a culmination of spending in excess of the receipts that we take in that required us to go out and borrow money. , terms of the history of this, up until 1917 whenever we went out to have a project, congress passed a bill to say build the panama canal. i don't know if that is a proper example. at the same time in that bill it authorized the ability to pay

for it. every time congress created spending, it created the authority to borrow, to pay for that project. come 1917, coming off world war i, that was unsustainable in terms of the amount of expenditures needed to fight that war. we had to establish this debt limit so that we didn't have to do it on every bill that came through. that established the debt limit. it is the law and it gets adjusted and we are at a point where we have to adjust it again. even when we adjust this, and i think the legislation that the house passed last week was to raise it by $1.5 trillion or by march 5 of next year, whichever

comes first. that level of debt that is on the books today, what wes have already made commitment to -- what we have already made commitments to, we are still looking at the debt continuing to grow. i would point out, we did not mention this earlier, but i look at the debt as a share of the economy. it used to be that, that debt was closer to 30%, 40% and now it is well up into 100% of our gdp. i youf take the house passed legislation last week, even if it were to come to pass, we would still be facing in 10 years debt to gdp close to 100% of gdp. we have to make some fundamental changes in our spending and

revenues policies going forward. otherwise, we are simply passing on this debt to our children, grandchildren, my girl chin -- grandchildren, my grandchildren. their living standard will be lessened because of this burden we are placing on them.wshould take on we -- we should take on the burden today. host: the total debt to gdp ratio is currently 134%.can i clarify guest:? -- guest: can i clarify? 134% is total debt. when i talk about debt held by the public, that is 100%. host: do you think the debt limit should go away altogether? get rid of it? guest: [laughter]

i think there is only one other country in the world who has a similar debt limit. i have mixed feelings about this. i understand the house's position, and i understand where senator graham was. it is a forcing mechanism to have us focus on this issue. i have mixed feelings about it. i don't think it has accomplished what people thought . i don't think gramm-hollings achieved what we wanted it to. but at least we are having this conversation today about the level of debt out there and what it means. i wish it was not as difficult as it is, that it does force

conversations so i guess i am filibustering your question by not answering it. host: let's take another caller. thomas in rupert dale, georgia on the democratic line. what is your question or comment? caller: thank you for taking my call. i really enjoy this program. one of my questions is how come no president has ever tried to pay off the debt? why can't we just pay japan or china, pay off a few of our debtors, just to avoid paying them interest all the time? when the gas prices are low, why can't we just increase the tax a little bit for a short period of time to try and pay off the debt, just to increase the revenue or something? is there an advantage to staying

in debt? guest: thanks, thomas. there was a president who tried to pay off the debt completely. his name was andrew jackson. it was somewhat successful, i guess, and then we entered into the civil war. payoff our investors overseas? i'm not quite sure, thomas, how that would work. if we paid them off and we told them "we do not want you to purchase our treasuries, we would force an increase in interest payments to encourage domestic investors to purchase our debt, so i think that is a little difficult to say we just pay them off and tell them they cannot purchase treasuries. it is a global economy now. we are interacting all over the world.

it is something that would be difficult to achieve. i don't disagree with you, thomas. there should be in times of war, in times of specific disasters, maybe we should just say we have a tax to pay for that particular activity witho -- activity on a one-time basis. you need to look at the overall taxing of the country and where it stands and apply a more uniform other than a one-off basis. host: all right. let's go to we gangs, colorado -- weakens, colorado -- let's go to wiggins, colorado. jack. caller: they up to raise the cap on social security to begin with.

how -- the federal government is the biggest employer in the united states. we never hear anything about how their retirement is running out of money so how is that compared to social security? maybe they ought to switch all federal employees over to social security. that would cure everything. that is the only question i have. thank you. guest: transparent, i am a federal retiree, and so i am aware of the federal retirement program. it was converted a few years ago into a system similar to what most people have in terms of retirement out there. i'm not sure it would be possible to simply convert everybody over to that particular type of program.

i think i like your idea of social security, taking the cap off. i'm going to say it is something like $120,000. that should be modified also and moved up. i think it should be more reflecting the changes in overall income. that cap should be adjusted upwards. host: thank you so much. bill hoagland, bipartisan policy >> c-span's washington journal your car live on the air on the news of the evidence because policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, the booking institution economic study senior fellow discusses the u.s. economic outlook and

recession concerns. also, the government accountability up as talks about the gao path latest high-risk look. tuesday morning on c-span or c-span now, our free mobile app, join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweets. th marianne williamson george washington john to take your calls d talk about her plform, or policy objectives and wh she sees as her path to victory, live, thursday on c-span, she's been's mobile video app or on c-span.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by this television companies and more. including buckeye broadband.

buckeye broadband along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up on c-span, house speaker kevin mccarthy delivering a speech to israel's legislature as part of a bipartisan congressional visit to jerusalem. then talking about bipartisanship in congress and later, bill kristol and others talking about defending democracy and combating anti-semitism. >> in an address to the -- how speaker said the u.s.