♪♪ ,. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] ,. captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org. >> we are funded by these television companies and more like cox. >> this is joe, are we connected? you're not alone. >> cox supports c-span along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> saturday morning president biden delivers the commencement address to howard university's graduating class. begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span. org or c-spannow. at the

center for american progress, he was an advisor to the director of the office of management and budget in the biden administration. welcome. guest: thanks for having me on. host: let's talk about the house republicans debt women spending cut plan. what are your thoughts on that? guest: first of all, regardless of what you think of the system, the approach being taken is totally inappropriate. the idea is we have a list of demands. the idea is if they do not get enough, they will force a default. from the backdrop, we should say that is not an ok approach. you get to the specifics. the main part, the biggest one is the discretionary spending cuts. we have two types of spending, discretionary, mandatory. the biggest proposal is they

want to cap the base level back to what it was two years and from there grow at only 1%. host: they are saying five months ago in 2022. guest: yeah, but, the fiscal year 2022 runs from october 2021 through september, 2022. they want to set the levels that began two years from that to be back. it is a good line. they say, oh, we are spending that five months ago. is it bad to go right back to it? those levels were locked in. technically, congress was late. technically, they lock them in in september 2020 one. those levels were locked in in 2021. they lasted a year. we used a continuing resolution, where we take what we have been doing where congress figures out what it was doing and then, we went into 2020 three appropriations, adjusted for inflation and other goods and

services. a great blind to say, we were just doing this, so how hard can it be to get back? the answer is, it would be -- below current services, it would be an immediate cut of 14%. they are saying we are going back to five months ago, but it is a 14% cut relative to current services. host: if you would like to call in and make a comment or ask a question of our guest, you can do that. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you said it is not ok to link the debt ceiling negotiations with spending cuts. why is that on ok -- not ok? guest: the pretext here is, if democrats do not give enough of what speaker mccarthy wants, he will force a default. that is what is not ok. it is legitimate to debate our fiscal path. we do every year. every year, we find what level

we are going to fund the government at. it is right now, negotiations will change and the path will be different. instead of that, what speaker mccarthy is saying, i want my proposal for this year, but for 10 years going forward. if you do not give me enough of what i want, i will force the government to default. you name it, we will force a default. you heard yesterday, speaker mccarthy said, looks like the president once a default. right? that is his framing, which is absurd. he said, if i do not get enough of what i want, you want a default. when the president says, hey, let's not default. host: let's hear from speaker mccarthy. this is from tuesday after he met with president biden, talking about that debt ceiling. [video clip] >> 97 days ago, i was right here after meeting with the president.

february 1, i came down here to say him, saying, let's work together in responsible, sensible way. we can lift the debt ceiling and find a way we can curve this increasing debt that is affecting every american family with inflation and now, three banks of our four largest banks are closed in the debt problem. nothing has changed since then. the only thing that has changed is, the house has raised the debt ceiling and passed the bill. that is why we had a meeting today. everybody in this meeting reiterated the positions they are at, i did not see any new movement. president said staff should get back together. i was very clear with the president. we have now two weeks to go. if chuck schumer can pass something coming -- has something, -- they have a debt limit. importantly, the president has waited 97 days without ever meeting.

every day i asked that we meet, and he says no. the house has raised debt ceiling in a responsible manner. curve our spending at the same time, bring us economic growth. i asked the president this simple question, does he not believe there is anyplace we can find savings? he signed a bill the house passed that became law that the pandemic is over. we have $50 billion to $60 billion that have been appropriated for more than two years that we can pull back to save the taxpayer money. we can put in packages that help us economically. cutting the red tape so we can build things in america again. we could have items that he actually voted for, like work requirements, that just passed in wisconsin with 82% of the vote, to help our supply chains get stronger. i would hope that he would be willing to negotiate for the next two weeks so we can actually solve this problem and not take america on the brink.

host: that was speaker mccarthy from tuesday. bobby, your reaction to it. guest: i mean, the biden administration's position has not been that it will not talk about -- they have been clear they are happy to have a debate about this. what speaker mccarthy is saying is, he wants that to be part of the debt limit negotiations. that is not how we traditionally have done it, at least under republican and its rations. the debt limit was suspended three times under the trumpet ministration with huge bipartisan support. mccarthy voted for all three of them. raised seven times since the bush administration, with huge bipartisan support, without any precondition. the difference here is that there is a democratic president. now, the republican house is trying to -- it makes sense, they want to get the policies enacted. the issue here is, they are saying if they do not get enough enacted, they will force a

default. host: isn't there room for spending cuts? he mentioned $50 to $60 billion in covid spinning. we do not need covid spending anymore, right? guest: i believe the president said tuesday he was open to rescinding a lot of that money. again, whether you think it is a good plan or a bad plan, the issue -- in my opinion, part of the issue is what he is saying here, if he does not get enough, he will force a default. what he said yesterday, it looks like the president once a default. the implication was, the president might not be giving him enough of what he wants. he is using -- i think what i would say here is that, i believe he feels outside of the context of the debt limit, he would not have the ability to force as many extractions as he is getting. that is why he was -- he is doing it this way, the leverage

is much bigger. it is not about the content of what we think is good or bad policy. that is a normal debate congress always has. they try to find a compromise. the idea here is, the compromise is how they are making negotiations. there is a ticking time bomb behind where speaker mccarthy is sane, if you do not give me enough, we will force a default. host: what happens as we get closer to that debt limit, do defaulting -- to defaulting? the american economy, the global economy, how would an amended -- an individual american feel that? guest: our entire financial system is based on the u.s. government debt being a sure thing. the government says, i will give you $10,000 at this time. you believe you are going to get $10,000 at that time. a lot of banks are capitalized with the u.s. government debt because it works like cash. the government says, it is worth

$10,000, it is worth $10,000. if you are not positive you are not going to get the exact amount, these financial transactions that rely on it are more extensive. anything that has an interest rate is going up. if that is an auto loan, a mortgage, that is going up. if you are getting something from a business and the business has credit, anything that is going on that has any sort of debt, financing going on, is more expensive. you will feel that at your kitchen table. that is even in the lead up. if we went over the edge, it will be much worse. if we went over the edge, the government would be forced to pull back its spending. what the government does, over 70% of what it does is go to people in the form of social security checks, payments to disabled veterans. all of that gets pulled back. now, everyone's pocketbook is less. now, i have less money to spend. if i am not getting my social security check, i have to spend

less. local businesses are spending less. they are laying off people. host: let's talk to viewers now. kathleen is first on the line for democrats in mississippi. hello. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: what i say is, enough is enough. this here is global. it is not just one, mississippi. it is all 50 states. if i get $914 a month and they cut off my internet down to $80 and we only go to payday loans, what is they doing about us? biden and harris are doing -- everything is coming our way. this is global. it is every state. everybody need to get on board behind biden and harris.

that is what i say. host: all right, kathleen. any comment there, bobby? guest: i completely agree. i think the idea of letting us default on is inappropriate. we would all see the effects. anything we are getting from the government in any way, whether that is a, whether that is water safety, that is all in danger under this. i completely agree. host: edgar is in norwich, connecticut. republican. the morning. caller: good morning, guys. thank you for taking my call. my question is that, i am a lifelong republican. although, i refused to vote for a convicted sex offender -- refuse to vote for a convicted sex offender. when i talk to my friends on the left, it seems biden has not delivered at all. now, he is shifting more to the center, which is odd.

i just wonder, why do you think that, one, he is running again when i think he was just supposed to be kind of a one term guy? what do you think he has not really delivered on, like canceling student debt and paid family leave? all of these things, it is hard for people. i do not think young people are going to vote for this guy. thank you so much. guest: thanks so much for the call. yeah, i would say obviously, every president is able to get some of what they are trying to enact on. and, not other things. the president was able to do the biggest green energy investment in american history. the student debt stuff is currently tied up in court. we will see how that one runs. to your point, the president was enabled to enact paid leave, which was a big thing he was trying to do. it was not for lack of trying. why he is running again?

[laughter] i think that is not something maybe i am the right person to -- but i think there is more he wants to do. host: kim is next in nashville, tennessee. independent. caller: yes, good morning. i have a question and a comment. i want to know if my social security check will be going down to the level it was in 2021. my comment is, i think we should take that proposal of -- that ran for democratic and stop the political contributions and make it, everybody has 500 political dollars to contribute. if they choose. it would make the politicians spend half of their day working instead of raising money and less beholding to the business. what you think about that? guest: kim, thanks so much to

for the call. no matter what happens in speaker mccarthy's proposal, your social security check level will not effected. that is affected by social security law. he would not -- no part of his proposal would be affecting social security law. do not worry about it. i will say, his discretionary caps apply to all discretionary spending. social security is not discretionary. that is why that one would not be touched in any way. the administration that runs social security is part of that. it's caps paul to cut the broad categories that includes social security. the administration that runs social security by an extreme amount. how you would live under the cap is under question. under 10 years, he says he wants to protect defense, the ba. if you do that, eventually, the cuts to everything else grow on average to be nearly 60%. social security would not work well if three out of every five

social security administrative workers had to be laid off due to big budget cuts. to your comment on money and politics, i agree. it perverts the system. a lot of memories are sourced --are forced to spend a lot of their time fundraising. it messes with people's incentives. i think there is strong agreement, especially in the biden administration. host: going back to what you said about defense and the veterans benefits, you have got a chart here in one of your articles with headline, fund lining -- funding for critical programs would be cut as much as 58% under gop proposals depending on medical defense and va medical care are protected. they say republicans will not touch that. guest: [laughter] that is right. i wanted to do it both ways. the funding caps that speaker mccarthy proposed are to the entire group of discretionary

programs. i ran it one way, which say, what happens if everything fails? i ran it a different way. if you take them at their word, you are going to protect the fence and the va, -- defense and the d.a.. -- va. they can pick which one they think is more fair. they do not like either of them. either of those is -- there is one scenario they are cutting defense by almost 30%. they say, we will not do that. now, they are cutting every thing by 60% and they do not want that, either. host: if this were to pass, how and when will these cuts take effect? guest: this is the bad part. the reason they love funding caps is that, it is very popular to say in general, we should cut government spending and not specify by how great it is easy to pass budget caps, hard to adhere to them and legislate to them.

this happened in 2011 when president obama was president and republicans had won the house. similar things played out. they threatened a default. president obama gave them a big chunk of what they wanted. it led to 10 years of funding caps. they were so extreme that republicans were not able to even write bills to them. they ended up cutting a lot, not as much as they proposed. even those were too extreme. first, you set a level. then, when it is time to write the appropriations bill to them, you try to would hear to the overall level. the house is right now working on that. they have said that next week, they are going to release their bill, which has military, construction and veterans health. that is an easy one to write. they say they will give them what they need. once you start writing the bill, that requires deep, deep, deep

cuts to satisfy those. let's say the next one they did was defense and they did their defense increase. all of a sudden, you have to write the bills that have the huge cuts. that is where they start to fail. host: let's talk to greg in alabama, democrat. caller: yes. i got a tax check for this young -- fact check for this young man on here. every one of the debt ceiling races, seven out of the last 11, was done had stuff added to it. you go back on c-span, go back, you see nancy pelosi puts stuff on the release bill to raise the debt ceiling. every one of them said --seven out of the last 11 has had stuff attached to it. there have not been no clean races. guest: i said they did not have

preconditions attached. not that they were clean. the concept here is whether or not you say, hey, we will not raise the debt limit unless we get these, versus we will throw the debt limit. i will take the trump ones as an easy example. there were three, huge bipartisan bills that were popular and had broad backing. then, they attached to it -- we will raise the debt limit while we are at it. the bipartisan budget act of 2018 and 2019, those were unrelated to the debt limit. it is very common for congress to take what our unpopular bills and attach them to popular bills that have bipartisan support. people conflate raising the debt limit with taking on new debt. nonetheless, it is always unpopular. the congress attached to these

popular bills, totally understand you are right. there were other things in the bill. they are a bit more precondition. what is going on here is fundamentally different. host: denise is an independent in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe one of the questions i was going to ask was just asked. maybe, this is just so complicated. i was wondering if you could break it down. in my mind, the debt limit, it is basically like, you get your credit card statement. if i am speaker mccarthy, i am telling the credit card company, i am not going to pay my balance , but i would like to discuss what i am going to spend next month or the month after that. i think the credit card company would laugh and say they do not care, they just want you to pay the debt you incurred.

is that what it is? it is the bills we have already incurred. then, they are talking about budgeting for the future and they are just smashing it together. if i tried to bargain with a utility company or credit card company that i had already incurred bills on, they are still going to want the balance, correct? even if i promise to cut my electric usage by 20% or something like that. is that what is happening? it is kind of confusing. i am sorry if it sounds simplistic. i was hoping you could just explain it. host: we got it. guest: denise, you should not put yourself down. that is actually precisely right. [laughter] that is exactly what it is. the debt limit is a limit on how much debt we can incur. right now, we had to issue new debt to meet the obligations we had made. if we are not able to issue new

debt to meet those obligations we have already made, we would be defaulting. it is totally right. how we want to budget for the future is basically unrelated to whether or not we want to pay our bills. that is why the u.s. stands part of the world doing this way. there is only other one country in the world that has a fixed all her debt limit. the rest do not do this this way. basically, every other country understands if you want to change your debt, change your spending and tax law or both. that is what you do. do not go and say, well, let me think about not meeting my legal obligations. you are totally right. you would never go to your credit card company, you would never say, well, i might not pay this bill unless we can figure out something. no other countries do that. it is a fabricated crisis. of course, we ought to be paying our bills, no questions asked.

host: let's talk to jack next in a butler, pennsylvania. line for democrats. caller: hello, are you there? host: i'm here, go ahead. caller: first, thanks for having me. i would like to tell you how my parents did it when they sat down to negotiate the household bills. my mom would say, here is what i do not absolutely need. then, my dad would say, ok, here is what i do not absolutely need. what is going on now is, one is sitting down saying, here is what you do not absolutely need and the other is sitting down saying, here is what you absolutely do not need. they are trying to undo president biden's accomplishments. host: what do you think? caller: you got any ideas on that? guest: [laughter] yeah. i appreciate the call, jack. to the first part of your

question, you know, if we were trying to figure out our household bills, figure out how we were going to budget in the future is not related to figuring out whether we want to meet our current bills. that is part of what is going on with this debt limit. to your other point of what the asks are, you are right. it is a wild starting point for house republicans to say, if you want a temporary increase in the debt limit, we would like you to undo major, signature parts of your agenda. imagine if in the trump administration, instead of just raising the debt limit or suspending the debt limit with no preconditions, house democrats or senate democrats said, we demand that you undo your signature tax legislation. that is the starting point. you have to repeal your tax legislation or you -- we will force you to default. we would like you to pass the

proactive. while we are at it, why don't we had more tax increases? why don't we do an additional $5 trillion to tax increases to the rich and large corporations? no one would go on and say, the two sides can agree. i am sure they will find something in the middle. democrats at that point have said, looks like president trump once a default because he is not accepting enough of our demand. everyone would say, that is ludicrous. that is what is happening on the other site. not only is the whole tactic illegitimate and inappropriate, it is -- the asks are, i would like you to undo your major accomplishments in order for us to think about not defaulting on the debt. host: bobby, what do you recommend as far as places that can be cut? guest: i think the president has been open to resending a lot of the unused covid money. that is an easy place to talk about. the issue with the spending cuts

is, there is a reason we have the spending we do. it is all popular for a reason. over 70% of our program spending of non-interest spending goes to the people in the form of medicare, medicare -- medicare, medicaid. the rest is biomedical research, cancer research, investments in their future. or, budgets to carry out the day-to-day. transportation, infrastructure, defense. you are definitely squeezing a program people really like and it is good for america. host: david is in pensacola, florida. independent. good morning, david. caller: i have a comment and a question. my comment is, i feel like your guest is disingenuous. congress controls the purse strings. anytime negotiation for a budget and debt ceiling is just a bargaining chip, that is how politics is played. it is a blood sport. now that republicans have a bargaining chip to deal with,

they are using it and that is called being pragmatic. the president who basically refused to meet with mccarthy until recently, he has been the cause of this coming to an edge of brinksmanship when he could've addressed this issue in a timely manner, which the republicans brought to him several months ago. my question for you, sir, is, why are we taking a look at other than social security -- there are other third rails we do not want to touch, especially because the american people paid into social security. you talk about nefarious things, i call them nefarious because there is always hidden money in the government. investments in the future. those obligations, we need to look at what the government is obligated to the american people too. that is where the debt ceiling, those conversations would -- i would like you to address that. guest: sure. sorry for interrupting. thank you, david. appreciate the call. you are right, it is a bargaining chip. the point i was trying to make is that, it is an inappropriate

bargaining chip. you are right. parties one to use the leverage they have. the question is, whether it is ok to use the american people at leverage. is it ok to say, if you do not give me enough -- it is totally right to ask for your policy agenda to be active. -- inactive. the republican party the house of representatives. they control a chamber of congress. it is right for them to say, we control a chamber, we would like to try to get as much and acted as we can. it is how democracy works. that is an appropriate thing to do. the question is, is it appropriate for them to say -- the pretext is, if you do not give us as much as what we want, we will force the government to default. it is obviously a bargaining chip. the question is, whether that is nok one. i believe it is not.

i believe it is not, but we can disagree on that. i think it is not ok to do that. to your point about whether we ought to cut investments in the future, again, it is ok to disagree on this. for instance, for school, some of the stuff we do is give money to local school districts to help students with disabilities. something called idea. if we want to make the affirmative case will for white -- case for why we should cut the program, you are welcome to. that is a healthy debate, whether the spending congress does is good, bad, useful or efficient. that is a legitimate debate to be having. i think a lot the spending we do on kids is useful. i think the spending we do to help people with childcare is useful. i think the spending we do on

nutrition, great stuff. i think the issue i would go back to is, this is within the context of, if you do not cut enough of these things, we will force a default. the final point i would make on this really quickly is, speaker mccarthy's plan is not to cut individual programming. it turns out these programs are popular. he says, i am going to cut broad category and let other people figure it out. that is how he gets to distance himself from the actual result of the cuts. host: bobby kogan, center for american progress. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." it is open forum. i will take your calls on politics or policy related until 9:00 a.m. eastern time. lisa is first on the line for demo