"

continues. host: bobby cogan served as a former advisor to the director of office of management and budget in the biden administration is also with the center for american budget. joining us now to talk about how government is funded. thanks for giving us your time again. guest: thanks for having me on. host: can you give is your impression on how things work resolved as far as keeping the government funded for another 40 plus days? guest: sure, with a couple of hours to spare, a deal came together, something that had been off the table before then. we had roughly a cleanish continuing resolution that

passed most spending on the discretionary side going to the previous levels. by and large, it kept things going through the end of november and gives congress more time that it will used to then fund full year appropriations. host: on the house side, you are seeing appropriation bills being worked on. talk about that is a process for the funding of government. guest: each year, we do 12 appropriations bills. they are usually combined into one bill called in on the bus and sometimes a few bills called minibuses. that was called the discretionary portion of the budget and that's about1/3 of the budget. it's the things where we pick the level every year. every year we say how much money will we give nasa or nih this year. and the department of defense so that is the1/3.

the house and the senate have been working on the 12 bills that the senate has marked up on a bipartisan basis. the house has marked up 10 of their 12 bills and they passed three of them and of given up on one and they are going ahead on this and it's useful to talk about what's going on. host: go ahead. guest: one of the backdrops behind all this is coming out of the -- we almost defaulted early in the year and out of that we passed a responsibility act and in there, we had a bipartisan agreement on what level we were going to fund the government. people still have to decide how it was broken down and how much of it would go to epa or nasa and that sort of stuff but the top line that was agreed to. folks were supposed to begin writing bills at that level. part of the reason we are in

such a difficult place now is the senate on a bipartisan basis started writing stuff slightly higher but the house wrote stuff significantly low the deal. when we say yes, they are going through the those, it's true but part of the issue is the bill they are writing severely under fund the deal that was agreed to a couple of months ago. host: part of your analysis, you made some statements and i want to read some of them and get you to clarify and elaborate on them. can we start with $58 billion for nondefense bills? guest: there was a deal that was agreed to with the majority of house and senate republicans voted for it spearheaded by speaker mccarthy. that total level is for

government spending. it was already a strict spending cap. it was going to reduce nondefensive discretionary money by $49 billion. then, the house republican appropriations bills cut 58 billion dollars below that for ongoing programs. if you add up the total spending for nih and cdc and the epa and social security administration, it's 58 ilion dollars below the deal. in addition to that, they cut back a bunch of other types of spending by 94 billion dollars. that's like underfunding the deal by $152 billion. within the last week and the speaker mccarthy has indicated they are planning to do another $60 billion beyond that and they have locked in around five ilion dollars but we will see where the rest comes from.

that's why we are in a difficult situation. house republicans have created these massive cuts compared to what the deal was six months ago. host: you can ask about the funding process, (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001 for democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us your thoughts at journal@c-span.org (202) 748-8003. are there differences between with the senate versus the house? guest: the senate has begun its process. it has marked them up and they had major bipartisan support. they were working on moving a minibus and i think they had 89 or 91 senators for a motion for cloture. they have huge agreement in their bills.

moving an appropriations bill if everything is working right, takes a while. typically, congress will pass a continuing resolution to buy more time which is extremely common. i would say the senate is working normally in this way. host: the house is offering lower figures that initially agreed upon, how does that impact what the senate has to do? guest: the senate can and will go ahead passing its bills. where it will matter is if the house republicans and system going significantly below the dealer setting up another showdown in mid-november. i don't think there is any appetite among senate republicans and senate democrats and house democrats and the white house of breaking the deal they did a couple of months ago. similarly, when there were budget caps for 2012-2021, they

didn't go below the captain any year. there were bipartisan agreement and all nine years to go above the cap. the issue here is that house republicans are going down a path they know won't become law. to that point, there was difficulty and they withdrew their ask of funding the department of agriculture and other agencies. they were having difficulty getting enough people to support it speaker mccarthy said don't worry, this won't become lost said don't worry about voting for it. if part of the issue is that the bill they are calling for was extreme. the ag bill is an example and it would ban pharmacies from selling the most common abortion drug while simultaneously

cutting a program that helps poor, pregnant women and newborn infants for food. it's only healthy food. it's called wic. this bill would really cut back and underfund this program that helps poor pregnant women and newborns get food. it's a pretty extreme measure. things like that are littered throughout these bills. that's why they won't become law. host: you said this and you may have reference it already -- can you elaborate on that? guest: any congress can do anything as long as it's constitutional. the appropriations committee is supposed to work on discretionary appropriation.

they can pull back things that are mandatory, that are typically funded through other committees. when that is done, it is only done on a major bipartisan basis. there was a deal to do $21 billion of that but now it's $115 billion. these were programs that were passed by other committees and inside these bills, they said i know this is another committees bill or another committees program funding but we were -- but we will pull it back anyway. host: on your twitter feed, when talking about ukraine, you have a twitter pole. i will read the question but i want to set it up for you. what percentage of the budget has ukraine assistance average? let's start with why you put the pole there in the first place? guest:

guest: it was related to whoever was the main character in twitter that day. -- but we look at what percentage of the budget, and it is not enough from anyone. it is not anyone's job, it is not most people's job to be federal budget experts. so once we have a wrong since of how big the parts of the budget are. people ask how big it is, they say it is 25% of the budget around 1% or yes -- or less. and they say we cannot do these at because of other thing any for it and it is not appropriate. and i did the pool to see what we are spending on things and how much various things cost.

the potential -- host: the answers very, what is the answer? guest: it would be around 1%, but it would be under 1%. and yet -- host: and yet this has complicated things with aid to ukraine in the past couple weeks. i'm sure you have seen that layout as well. guest: to be clear there is a bipartisan majority in each chamber. and even if the majority of everyone agrees sometimes things do not end because very specific people have made it a biggest issue. in the senate, they are continuing resolution. they were originally going to have a -- more for ukraine but

they lower that. between the defense side in the department of state side. in the house version, they took out ukraine entirely. i did not know what would happen if we had -- given this all came together the day before we shut down there was not time for full -- folks to say we did it this way what of we did it this way we were already dealing with the reality of shutting down. they are working through the house may or may not bring up a measure. it's important to a lot of members for various reasons and so we will certainly see it come up. host: lesser start taking our callers to speak with bobby kogan. good morning. democrat line. you were on.

caller: good morning. i wish they would be more specific with a talk about what programs they are trying to cut. in the past they do ones that get rid of social security and medicare. when they talk about spending, that is one of the things they want to cut. and then with president trump, in four years, he spent over $8 trillion. when they did a comparison with all the presidents over the years he is the one that had more spending. he spent over a trillion dollars in four years. and when people realize -- $8 trillion in four years and when people realize that you do tax cuts there's no money there. that's why republicans are always for the rich and the poor people and working class will suffer. and this lady previously on

before you she set and said a bunch of lies that trump has not done anything. all he did was give himself and rich people tax cuts. host: ok thank you. guest: thank you for watching and calling in. i totally agree. i think it is important for people like me and everyone to be specific about this. the thing about government spending you as people should we cut government spending and they answer it that way it would be a huge percentage of americans would say yes, we should cut this. of course. but if you ask them specifically they say not that, and you say what about this? they say not that either. the majority of the people say no to almost everything they talk about. there's a couple specifics. there's 58 billion dollars below the deal that house republicans are going to cut. and i promise i'm going to sound like a buy per --rabid partisan

by talking about them with so extreme but i promise with anyone i am happy and -- happy to point you to this right legislation and you can do the work yourself, but they call for nearly an 80% cut to title i education. this grant gives to poor school so they can keep schools in business. they have 17 or $18 billion a year and they are looking at cutting it nearly 80% leaving it at its lowest level in program history. that is not, when i first was crunching the numbers i had to triple check i worked because i thought i had misread it. and we do this grant that helps local -- states and local areas make sure the drinking water is clean. in the house republican bill cuts the bill by 59%. there was no way no one could support that but they do.

to your point, we should do a better job about whipping up the specifics. i will be better about that in the future. host: mark is in south dakota. hello. caller: hello. i was downtown yesterday and i seen, like 200 people in the food line. that is ridiculous. i'm a disabled veteran. what about our veterans today and social security? i fall for this country two years in vietnam. you know, i am an old man now and every month you've got to stretch the check, you know? it really is, i am really surprised that these politicians, you know, they still get their checks and everything. it is really sad the way -- to what america has came to, you know? host: that is marked in south dakota. let me expand a little bit with

safety programs and how they could be impacted. guest: thank you for calling in. obviously i absolutely agree that the government that works to make sure that people are taken care of is the right way to do this. so i am happy to say that social security, veteran stability and compensation and veterans health care are not at risk and not up for debate in what is coming up here. those sorts of things are totally, totally taken care of which is a great thing. we do special, we have a major housing assistance program called section housing. it is about six -- $46 billion a year giving special preference to veterans, folks with disabilities, and families with children. that sort of thing is up for debate, do not worry about your social security check and do not

worry about your bet come checks or your health care. host: robert in wisconsin, independent line. next up. caller: good morning i have a question about government spending on the border and border patrol. host: go ahead, you are on. caller: good morning my name is robert right and i have a question about the border and border spending. good morning my name is robert. host: you're going to have to stop listening to the television and go ahead with your question please. caller: good morning my name is robert and i have a question about the spending for border patrol. guest: hello thank you so much for calling. i do not have the exact center job the top of my head but my email address you can find it through the website but it is

bkogan -- i will get back to you and give you a number but i do not have it off the top of my head. host: ok republican line south carolina you are on that. caller: hello? host: you are on go ahead, please. caller: i just wanted to ask how much do you think would be too much spending? would it be $50 trillion a year or, how much of a debt are you willing to its apt? you know -- to accept, you know, and have you ever went and had dinner with somebody who works for a live-in -- a living, a middle-class guy. you say you are all for the middle class but i would say you have not talked to one in years. guest: thank you for calling in. a lot of those when we do international comparisons we do look at spending in the percentage of economy.

the u.s. budget is about $6 trillion but our gdp is over $20 trillion. and so it is thinking about what we are spending relative to what we have -- it is not a perfect analogy but it is the same way we think. the u.s. relative to other countries is a low spending country. and part of that there is a weird health care non-comparison. but the u.s. by and large is low spending country it is a lot less than other folks, we do not do much in the way of childcare or in the way of early education. we are not doing that much in terms of postsecondary education. in terms of how big it should be, that is up to congress to figure out what we can do. i would say the build back better which did not happen was about 3.5 trillion or over a decade -- more over a decade.

it depends on what version you look at. that would do childcare, preschool, stuff after high school. it would have done more stuff to make it a little bit more like some of the other kind of economic wave in the country. host: it was earlier this week that representative matt gaetz was on the sunday show and he talked about intention as far as the speaker was concerned but he also talked about the house appropriations bill and particularly their efforts on spending. i want to share what he had to say with the process and then get your response to it. >> as a 12 year lawmaker in the level, the house passes legislation and the senate does and then you work to iron out the differences. i believe that as a way for them to take the most conservative position and then engagement negotiation. where the negotiation has failed all americans of all stripes is

when it centers around what you will hang on with a continuing resolution or opposite bill. the sober and adult way it -- to handle this is with the open mmn. and if people do not want to go to the open amendment, they can vote no and voters can hold people accountable. the reason we sit atop a 33 trillion dollar debt is because a system has been designed in d.c. or no one is responsible for the spending. here is what you are missing, mccarthy agreed to this. you may not like this bill and there's too many boats and too much governing. but mccarthy reached it in january -- host: he said a lot about the process, what do you think? guest: [laughter] thanks, pedro. i think some of it is right and some is wrong. we tend to link it altogether for the movement and making sure that no bills are left hanging.

there's always a worry that if you fund 10 out of 12 bills what would happen to the remaining two with that part of the government shutdown and there not being enough support to keep that open. i think what i would say is that busy doing -- the hyper majority of the time, not always, but most of the time the stuff under the hood has already been negotiated. so you have this time beforehand for input from the caucus and the members and everything to make that happen. obviously, if people have not gotten to see that before that would be difficult. i totally agree the house should do one version and the senate should do another version and then figure out what people agree on. what makes this year different is there was very pre-agreement of what happens -- not under the hood but what the total level would be at and they say we are

ignoring the level and will do a different level. there's plenty of debate on how the individual programs and agencies will be funded. i do not think there is room for debate on what it totally should be because we already agreed on that. host: marcus join us, maryland. democrat line. caller: we know the money really came from the congress and the first place. the debt comes from them. from their paychecks. why not go right back to something that used to work it was cutting their pay. why hasn't the president made in order to actually cut their pay? we know the debt is from their pay because it only existed in 1960 or 1970. the debt actually comes from them to keep raising paychecks over and over. they just did it wet, last week? they raise the pay again. minimum wage pay but they do not

raise the support. i asked my aunt how much she got paid when she started working she said $3.35 and i am wondering, $3.35 when i started working it was four dollars 25 cents. she started working in 1918. bobby, tell us where it is the debt come from in the first place? host: that is marcus. and he directs congressional salaries i suppose. guest: thank you for calling in. i wrote a report in march with my staff trying to figure out how we went from balanced budget and long-term projection to lower declining debt. and the clinton era through now. my report which you can look up kind of pins it on tax cuts. they went disproportionately to the rich. and what my analysis shows is

that if not for that debt we still have debt right now but debt would be climbing at the -- percent of gdp in the long run. and so, i would encourage folks to look at the. the other point i would make is a lot of people touch on how spending in security and medicare and that sort of kind of stuff. and we had places where our tax revenue was said to keep up with the ending yes it will go up from the demographic changes but revenue would keep up not because of more tax increases but because we were getting richer as a nation and the richer it is the more it automatically brings in that. tax earnings. and we did too and nora missed tax cuts -- two tax cuts and that we do not have that. host: why not factor that into the debt deficit? guest: for this rescue plan it

was a one time debt. it did increase the nominal amounts of that, gdp but it did not change the long term trajectory because that gets changed out in the next couple years. it did not change the long term trajectory. of pay or if we have revenues that outweigh that's. in terms of the inflation reduction act or i cannot remember, i don't remember if that is what you said. host: yeah. guest: that increased spending in one area and decrease in another area. net spending have more revenue coming in. that when will end up being probably about roughly deficit neutral over the long run. it will increase spending in some areas but bring it more taxes from fewer people cheating on their taxes. host: to what degree is the

spending from this administration and previous ones? some say it is this administration. i am skeptical -- guest: i am skeptical when you pump more into the economy it does run higher. we did see an inflation hike all over the advance world and we saw it come down everywhere. their signs in the country. and right now the u.s. has the strongest real growth of g7 in almost any country. and then we have the lowest inflation. we have the highest wrote in the lowest inflation. so, to me from a starting point, i do not think it makes sense. the other thing i would wait out is that the congressional budget office like congress -- they have a concept called potential gdp where if you're running below potential the economy is under -- it has more room.

and if it is above potential they say it is causing excess inflation. if you look at the congressional budget. potential gdp and actual gdp about where the economy is with potential, they would say in one order we ran fairly above potential, but otherwise we were below potential during the entire pandemic response. that showed that they do not think that we over stimulated the economy. what happened was we had a massive pandemic that disrupted supply chain and completely change people's spending habits i spent differently than i did in 2019. it takes a while for companies to shift their production lines to match. the first change in spending is permanent and then they need to change the production. i -- the house oversight committee. if you google bobby kogan i have

a graph on this. and i have one you should check out. host: and we have the national debt sitting at $33 trillion. i suppose the average american looks at that and has concern. what how do you look at the number? guest: thank you for the question. i tend to use a different number which is still a big number but that number tends to be used by the people who are trying to scare you. i'm not saying you are trying to do that but the people that have been in oh and they -- that includes the number wit >> we are going to leave this program here to keep our over 340-year commitment to live coverage of -- 40-year commitment to live coverage of congress. watch at c-span.or kpw-fplt. we take you live to the floor of the u.s. house here on c-span.