more coming up this weekend that is it for >> i will send congress a budget that creates new jobs in manufacturing and energy and innovation and infrastructure. john: how will he pay for it? >> we'll pay for every dime for it by cutting unnecessary spending. john: give me a break, they never cut anything. this asks for billions more for universal preschools. >> it is right for america. john: billions more on infrastructure. >> but you need to fund the projects. john: already $17 trillion in debt. must government spending go up. this is per person since america began, it was 5% of the economy, here's world war i.

here's world war ii, used to go down, but even in peacetime, it goes up. pretty soon, we're up here. how are we going to pay for that? what happened to the billions already spent? >> shovel ready was not as ready as we expected. john: hey, big spenders, there's a better way. that's our show, tonight. ♪ and now john stossel. john: another year, another new budget, another plan to increase spending this time by $250 billion, says the new budget include america's bankruptcy by addressing the biggest budget buster? no, not a peep about this. this is about spending more, investment spenders call it,

it's ridiculous. what's ridiculous? investment is good. it grows the economy. >> john, thank you for having me on the show. big spenders call taking money from you and me handing it to someone they prefer investment. that's not what i learned 20 years in business before i came to congress. this president's plan is worse than more of the same taking the debt $25 trillion over the next decade. john: the budget says the president acknowledges that. >> that's right. that's his plan. that's the intended outcome. frankly, we know it'll be worse, not a single proposal about the risk for the affordable care act, not a peep about entitlement programs and how to tackle them, and on top of that, enormous tax increases reducing growth for the economy, frankly, the best way to climb from the debt is get the economy kick started again. eventually, john, kicking the

can, you hold the can and beg for money. that's where america's going to find itself. john: sounds appealing, though, loan guarantees, $2 billion to promote fish, sea, and renewable energy. >> john, i've seen these renewable energy stories for my entire time in congress, fought against them with incredible energy myself. you know, they tell you in one breath how great solar and wind is, but in the next breath, i can make it better if i take more taxpayer money and put it in my pocket. this is the not the way the american economy should work by picking winners and losers, and most of the money will be wasted with no benefit to the american people. john: we referenced the $25 billion debt. do you think americans understand the debt? i worry they don't because when i ask about it, they say things like this. >> should government spend more to help people? >> of course. government should always be spending to help people. >> i think that the government

should be trying to help people. john: they believe we can spend, and that's the way to help people. >> john, i'll tell you, i hope they were outliers in the group you saw. john: no. that was everybody i asked. no, not everybody. >> when i'm back in kansas, folks get the corporate -- they get you cannot spend more money than you take in forever. they have to be responsible in their own lives, government has to do that too. it's for us to shoot straight, tell the truth. things governments need to do less of, and when we do that, great outcomes happen. take less of the money, they make good decisions, grow the economy, and we'll get the nation back on the right track. spending is not the right solution. we don't have an austerity budget today. we have a budget that's spending money like no nation's done in the history of mankind. john: thank you, congressman. >> thank you, john.

john: now we turn the to policy wangs, one from the right, one from the left. the heritage foundation, and bryce covert from st. progress. now policy wonk, don't get too wonky, and if you do, i blow the wonk horn, but, bryce, starting with you, you disagree with me and the congressman. how did we get it wrong? >> he says it's about values, we are sure it's not going to pass any time soon with the congress we have, but it's about deciding where you invest and how you pay for it. it's not like he's deciding to do all the new spending and won't pay for it. a lot is paid for. john: with higher taxes. >> with higher taxes, but it's not just a tax for everyone in the country or even all of our wealthy people, but specifically targeted, say, money that multinational corporations take

overseas, and, therefore, they avoid u.s. tax. john: assuming they don't dodge it and bring money in. what about the debt? doesn't that scare you? >> the deficit, you know, the difference between the debt we have and money we have is falling right now. it fell at the fastest rate last year than any year since world war ii. john: falling from the stimulus. >> sure, but another reason is because the economy's getting better. part of the reason it was bigger in the recession is because people were not paying as much in taxes because they were not working, needed for unemployment, and those are getting better. maybe not as fast as we want them to get better, but that improves the fiscal situation. john: she calls this investments. pay for it with new taxes. >> well, the deficit is really a short term phenomena, the fact it's falling, going up, and by the end of the a decade, it's over a trillion dollars again. john: freak issuely falling, and

my age group retires, and, oh. >> interest rate exploding, will triballed, and by 2020, spent $800 billion on interest on the debt alone. that's more than we'll spend on domestic budget or defense budget, so if we don't get debt under control, there's not any money to make investments whether you agree the government should make them or the private sector should. john: your think tank has a chart that tries to explain that. you see $17 trillion by the time my age group is all retired, 205 trillion -- not enough money in the world. >> no. that's the fiscal gap. look at what the government promised with benefits, medicare, and social security, obamacare, the new entitlement, and what we expect to bring in in taxes over the 75-year period, that's the debt you're not seeing today, but even debt you see is more than $65,000 for every american. john: what about that? doesn't that sink us? >> well, talk about social security.

i think it's a good thing too talk about and long term entitlements. you have to talk about health care in the country. we pay too much for health care, and there's a problem there. i would say the affordable care act is a step in reforming that system and make it not cost as much. you may not agree. i think that that's a health care problem. social security, on the other hand, is actually an easy fix to make it sol vent for 7 a year, and that's just to lift the cap on taxes that are paid. a lot of wealthy people are not going to pay taxes on their income into social security this year because there's a low cap. we listed it, we would be fiscally solvent. john: tax the rimp. >> always. if you lift the cap -- john: look how rich they are. they afford it. >> bring in surplus revenue now, spend it like they have in the past of the. if the trust fund held assets, social security wouldn't have a

deaf sit or cause a problem for the budget. because we know the government spent all the money, and that's what happens if we lift the cap, the revenue does not come in, goes out the door, and spends special interest projects. it won't go towards our priorities, won't go to basic research or infrastructure, what you think are important, but special interest drives money in washington which is why spending caps are so important. john: skeptical of the think tank and some of your ideas about this because i look at what you guys have said in the past, the sequester was something that really -- that's the reason the deficit went down in addition to the fact it was passed by a big blowout stimulus. think progress on that. suffering ensues if they allow cuts to go into effect. they went into effect. i didn't see chi yous and suffering, and 6,000 children and pregnant women could lose access to food and health care. give me a break.

>> actually, there was quite a lot of suffering. may not as been as bad as we thought as they found short term ways to blunt the blow we were expects, but a lot of kids were kick out of head start. talk to the parents about what they did with their children trying to get to work. you know, i talked to domestic violence shelters who shut doors and couldn't help women. it impacted low income people. john: the reporters are all with you. you'd think they would have pointed it out. >> local news covered it, but it was not national because it did not impact everyone. you know, people who rely on head start. john: government exaggerated? >> i think that it was not exaggerated. we had a hole where we started programs, long term things like

scientific research, shut down the programs in sequesteration, and they'll continue to suffer this year. john: 3.5 trillion is not enough? >> it's got noing to the long term priorities. make decisions where we spend and invest. john: rarely seem to. >> i think that the spending caps work. first of all, they fill 2.5% of the spending. john: some sequester is left. >> very small. head start, the obama administration put out a study, despite billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars spent on it had no cognitive effect on the children. sounds good, but are we helping the children or just increasing burden of government and all that spending and higher debt, that drags on the economy, less growth, fewer opportunity hurting lowericans the most. we need progrowth policies helping everyone get jobs and a

true raise. john: the deficit, it's big one, you acknowledged that. politicians promised to fix it forever. never happens. this clip is by 15 years ago. >> we expect by 2014 to totally eliminate the debt. john: instead it's $17 trillion. >> that's your guy. tom daschle. >> long term projections are hard. right now, there's a lower deficit than we thought three or four years ago. the picture changes a lot we're on better footing than we that. >> it's coming down. john: coming down? it's still 600 billion dollars.

that's how much more we spend than we collect. thank you. to keep this conversation going on facebook or twitter, use this hash tag there, let people know what you think. coming up, president obama says we should have preschool for all. is that a good thing? i say it's a bad thing. you may not agree. next.

>> i asked congress to help make high quality pre-k available to every 4-year-old. john: free preschool for every 4-year-old. appealing idea, and everyone i asked liked it. giving free school to every kid, good idea? >> i think education's good. yeah. i think. >> universal pre-k is great so long as the taxpayers don't mind paying for it. john: they do mind and i might for other reasons, this creates a single standard for preschool. that can kill innovation. also, government preschool crowds out private alternatives that might be better.

while programs like head start sound good to people. the president's own education department studied it and found it didn't work. it helped briefly, but few years later, there was no effect. billions of dollars later, it made no difference. now the president wants to spend more. i say that's crazy. nobel prize winning economist says i'm dead wrong. professor, why? >> well, be careful. i didn't say you were dead wrong in everything you said. john: oh, good. >> i said there's an economic basis. i heard a previous segment of the program, and people were talking about investments. i think this is the case where if there was more evidence than the kind mustered on behalf of preschool for disadvantaged children, you're going to find that the program more than pays for itself in terms of the return, both to the individual and the society. i think there are some government programs that are

investments like, you know, for example, the interstate highway system or, for example, the transcontinental railroad linking the country together. there's investments that pay off. so i completely am with you when you say, oh, you know, there's a lot of government waste, but i would say if people look at the evidence for other programs the way that we've looked for evidence on p this program, then we'd have -- we'd go a long way towards meeting some of your criticism, but i think this program that we're talking about, these classes of programs will probably survive it. john: okay. this program, you have studied the perry preschool and concluded investment, high quality investment to preschool brings a return to 7 to 1, and every contribute 7 to 1 statistic now including our president. >> every dollar we invest in high quality early education can save more than $7 later on. john: come on.

this was a study of 58 kids 50 years ago, and it was high quality. what are the chances that a government run education system is going to be universally high quality? >> well, let's be careful there. several aspects to the argument that needs qualityification. it doesn't have to be a strictly government run program, but government financed program. the difference between government paying for programs and programs ran by the private sector. i, myself, advocated a mix of public and private. i think you want to separate the two issues. i'm completely with you if you want to engage. i mean, people like art rollmake in minnesota have brought together these privately financed programs and shown some success, so i just want to separate -- upjohn i don't think the president wants private financing. he wants the state to run it. >> well, no, no. i think there's a lot of initiative that can be supported at the individual level.

i don't think anybody supporting preschool are earlier education for young children think it has to be strictly a government program. the fact is the scale of the program suggests government activity is an important component. government in the sense of financing. tax based support, but when you -- come back to the 7 to 1 you mentioned. that 7 to 1 figure includes the very kind of cost that the congressman earlier in the segment talk about. it includes the deadweight loss of taxes. we include the fact with you tax, you distort the economy, and the 7 to 1 survives even that test. it's a strong test. i feel that if you look at these returns, that they stand up close scrutiny. not a peer review article where the friends -- not an advocacy blog, a post, this was an article in the economics journal. john: i accept it was good

research, but the perry preschool, teachers went home with the kids once a week, spent an hour and a half with the mom and the child. this is expensive and intensive. they got results. >> let's be careful. it's no more expensive in a per capita basis today than elementary school students in most states around the country. john: $10,000 a student. >> 9-10,000 across states. varies. connecticut spends a lot, you know, and other states spend less. fact is it's not higher. this is the point i think you really are missing, and i completely with you. there's a lot of waste in government programs. what is necessary are what are benefits and compare it to the cost. it's not a matter of cost. look, i bought a new car. it cost thousands of dollars. if i looked at thecost, what a waste of money. i just have a car. i spend thousands of the

dollars. i could be doing something else with it. that car also gives me services. it lets me drive. it lets me be here on the television station. john: i'm happy for your car, but two states, oklahoma and georgia have had preschool now for 15 years. the result? lots of money spent, nothing is better. we're out of time for this. thank you, professor. coming up, i should be happy because the president wants to give more money to me.

john: how far deep in debt america is, no doubt it will get bigger because of me, i'm a baby boomer, my big generation is about to retire, collect social security and medicare, there is no pool of money to pay for our retirement. the government took money out of

or paychecks for 40 years, for what they said was social security and medicare, but they spent it. right then, right that year, there is no trust fund, now government said my retirement must be funded by you young people. how can a afford that? my age group has been promised trillions of dollars, evan fienberg. a group called generation opportunity is upset, your group calls it a war on youth. geezers like me paid into the system we deserve your money. >> no doubt there is a war on youth perpetrate by politicians, they are spending my future amy you can ent opportunity away on things that are not makingny life better. >> it makes my life better, can i have your wallet. what is happening you, and you, i presume are not as av fl av

well you int as i -- affluent as i are giving me money. >> politicians are bribing your generation, to put their next election. john: some of my generation is poor, they worked all their life, they remember promised medicare. >> we need to keep our promises and restructure and reform our entitlement programs but we're not kieving the promises t to keeps promises to next generation. >> raise the retirement age? >> absolutely, slowly entr en increase retirement age. john: there are reforms when president obama ran for president he said he would tackle entitlements during his

first term. >> we'll have to take on entitlements, and i think we have to do it quickly. like to do it in my first term as president. john: tha happen. 3 years later, president said he was willing to do at least reduce growth of social security. >> it turns out that making some moderate modifications, in those entitlements can save you trillions of dollars,. john: on this budget he backed down from that too, the cost of living adjustment. >> he has backed away from even most modest of reforms, slowing growth and social security benefits by 1/3 of 1%, we have really big problem, facing our economy. future generation, and president politicians are refusing to make the most modest reforms. >> i don't see how it is going to work out, people' more money to fight putin, pay for military, and help poor people, you are toast, and you are committed to help my

generation. and time reform seems to be political suicide. >> chicken. >> years ago when a majority leader propose a modest reform. elderly people surrounded his car and screamed at him he had to drive to a gas station to escape, and cancelled the reform. more recently, when representative paul ryan proposed to rein in spending a left wing group ran that more bimorbid ad. john: are you pushing an elderly lady off a cliff. >> who is getting off a cliff, and under the bus that is my generation, saddled with these bills, previous gust talked about $205 trillion we'll have ta payback in future, not enough money in the world, my generation is getting thrown under the bus to make sure we don't make the most modest reforms toure time program.

john: -- to our entitlement program. john: you hinted at ripe a idea, to take care of you, encourage people to be independentn 't. >> congressman ryan led the way to open a discussion about how we pay for these programs. to make sure they help those most in need and targets benefits in a efficient way. john: thank you evan, i'll give you your money back, i'm sorry i took it. >> i appreciate that very much. john: when i retire it is coming back to me, next, ron paul will give his spin on so-called shrinking of the military. military.

john: there is one part of the government that will be hit with big think about cuts, that is impression you get from the

media, pentagon plans to change army to preworld war ii levels from "new york times", a report from fox news. >> army would shimplg by 80,000 troops, 8 tep war hog would be retired. and u2 spy plane replaced by an unmanned vehicle, the new face of the trim down military. john: it thank you not mean they will spend less, secretary of deficient said today's military can fight with fewer people, technology does more. >> you are equipped to do how you are led, the equipment that you have, the modernization that technology, versus what our army looked like in 1939, there is no comparison. john: so, fewer troops, if congress approves, former congressman ron paul, now host of ron paul channel said that is long overdue.

ron? >> hello there, yes. i do. john: you called for this for a long time, are you happy? >> well, if it really would happen, it might be you know the right way to go, i don't believe in this, rumsfeld of talking like their a few years ago it never happened, now i hear that report saying they of cutting 80,000, i saw 40,000, up less congress changes their mind, they will, this is an excuse to pretend they are cutting in app area fo an -- in an area for purpose of buying more weaponry. john: they do admit they are spending $28 billion more. >> right. they are, they are not really cutting anything. they want to pretend to down size the amount of pen nel. -- energy pehl, my argument is they should down size foreign policy, if we're going to be policemen of the world, we are

sending a destroy or black sea this is important, the i f35 we need that, i guess that american people say keep spending. they voted to give aid to ukraine. where are we going to get the money? it never ends. that is why i predict it will not end until we have a declared bankruptcy with the destructed of the dollar, at the rate they are going they are working hard on that. john: dick cheney said about these plans, cuts and personnel this dangerous. lindsay graham said guts our defense? >> well, i think they are smoking something. it's dangerous if we keep doing what we're doing. who is going to invade us? who was lob missiles at us,? 1960s, cold war was ongoing, and

i was you know drafted during the cuban crisis, i think that was a well the different than now. we don't have that but it looks like we're going broad searching for monsters, you know destroy in fight looks for our next battle just so budget would pass. somebody said to me many years ago, there will always be a incident about the time that budget comes out to make sure nothing gets cut out of the military budget, we have one going on, we have to scare us, how did they get us to the people to go along with the war they really should not have gone along with with iraq and scare everyone, we were about to be attacked, we were going to be hit by a nuclear weapon. so, it is ongoing. what -- what i can't quite understand is why do the people keep believing these stories. >> people watch the news, they see the poor people, in the, crepe run over, they say -- in ukraine being run over, they say we should do something, putin is

terrible we have to be strong. >> you know they need to do circumstance not be so naive -- to to is not be so navy, and believe everything they hear on television. you are unique in presenting this case, in opposition to some of this spending, but people are still going along with it i might say, i don't think it is as bad as it used to be, i think we've have maiden roads when the time came to bomb syria, american people spoke out, and obama backed off. and congress backed off. but then, again, yelling and screaming about a war mongers, he a weak peja stojakovic president, when you -- a weak president, when you stand up against appreciate interests, who are always lobbying for more war that stakes strength, we need to stand up against the privileged groups who want more spending more war. john: you say -- wrote military

spending is also welfare for the well connected military industrial complex? yes, in this is something that conservatives forget. we as conservatives have talked a lot about keynesianism, welfarism and they are good at this, no more welfare, no more food stamps, don't care if i take care of child healthcare any more, but sacred you keep military central complex going even on weapons you don't need, that is keynesianism, if you go around the country, you can't close this down these are jobs, these are defense jobs, also the reason the f35 is built in 46 different states. john: each state has a reason to fight for it thank you ron paul, thank you for being such a consistent voice for reason. >> thank you, john. john: later in the show, countries that prospered because

their politicians actually cut spending. but next, spending the most americans love. >> rebuilding america's infrastructure, our roads our brings, our rails, our ports. latte or au lait? sunny or bubbly? cozy or cool?

"meow" or "woof"? wheels or wheeeels? everything exactly the way you want it ...until boom, it's bedtime. your mattress isn't bliss: it's a battleground of thwarted desire. enter the all-new sleep number classic series. designed to let couples sleep together in individualized comfort. starting at just $699.99 for a queen mattress. he's the softy: his sleep number setting is 35. you're the rock: your setting is 60. that works. he's the night owl. his side's up while you're in dreamland. you're the early bird. up and at 'em. no problem, because you're in it together... keeping the love alive. and by the way - snoring? sleep number's even got an adjustment for that. crazy? only if sleeping peacefully with your soulmate is crazy. find your sleep number setting only at one of our 425 stores nationwide. you can afford a sleep number bed, you can't afford another mediocre night's sleep. know better sleep with sleep number.

>> spend more on infrastructure disbr. . >> we have to. john: spending on infrastructure is popular, new roads, better bridges, politicians promise it all of the time. >> rebuilding america's infrastructure. we have a lot of work to do out there. we have to put folks to work. john: put folks on work. what is wrong with that? plenty said economist ben powell. >> the cart before the horse, so one sign av an economic elit rat someone that -- illiterate someone that lists jobs as a their policy. from private sector example.

your show here, the value is that hopefully it is in people's living rooms, they are enjoying watching it getting information but the cost, you have people behind the camera doing work. you are doing something that takes you away from other activities you would rather be doing, hanging out with boring economists here, instead of doing something fun of all days of all your birthday, i have been away from home for 4 days, our employers pay us for bearing these cost to provide value to society, in private sector we have a profit and list system. if fox makes money by taking this -- >> back to infrastructure. >> government should do infrastructure for jobs, building roads the wrong way, i don't know what they are doing with this caterpillar equipment, obama should hand the people

shovels and let them clear the land, give them spoons, think of how much work they would have do to scrape together a road, in the end of benefit would be road not the work done, a lot more -- >> but we want the infrastructure. >> you argue for benefit of infrastructure not for job creation. john: they do both, president obama talked about rebuilding america's infrastructural most like it was a new idea, listen to him 5 years ago, and every year. >> we're remaking the american landscape with largest new investment in our nation's infrastructure. >> i have announcing a new plan, for rebuilding and modernizing america's roads, and rails, and runways, for the long-term. >> we'll pull put more americans to work repairing crumbles roads and brings. >> so much of america need to be rebuilt, we have crumbling roads, and bridges.

>> put people to work as soon as possible. john: like a mantra chance. >> one definition of insanity trying to do the same thing again and again and inspects different results -- expecting different results. >> you look at japan in 1990s they did turn of infrastructure project to try to get out of recession that did not work. people in capital are -- too much in construct, housing related, good news we didn't have to shoot people or burn the houses afterwards but we have to reallocate them to other places in the economy these programs this force resources back into industry prevent that needed recovery and reallocation, the cleansing after the recession. john: a lot of infrastructure never happened after the orgy of stimulus spending in 2009, less of repaired than they planned. and unemployment. rose from 8 to 9%, president of

asked, what happened. >> shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected. expected. >> infrastructure is important, but why do we think that government has a advantage in producing infrastructure. john: private sector used to build most of the road. >> colonial turnpike system was larger than eisenhower interstate system when it came to being. we have examples in united states, in california, sr71, that was approve vat road, constructed in middle of a government highway, they brought us electronic polling with overhead cameras, and flexible pricing. now government could not do these things, but they don't have profit incentive, they are not as innovative.

john: they waste money doing it. >> always. >> thank you ben powell. we'll try to rethink that, next, i'll reduce our debt, cutting is good for us.

take this simple test. press your tongue against it, like this. it moves! do you feel it? it can happen with every denture. these movements may irritate your gums. but you don't have to bear with it. you can try fixodent plus gum care. thanks to its formula, your gums become one with your denture. this helps stop movement and helps prevent gum irritation so you can keep enjoying life.

[ apple crunches ] fixodent. and forget it.

>> the minute you walked in the joint ♪ i could tell you are a big spender ♪ 1 you like to know what's going on in my mind ♪ john: i'll tell you what is going on in my mind, poll tis shoul -- pole -- politicians should stop debating on whether to increase spending. this is nuts, we should 11 from countries like our neighbor to the north, canada cut spending years ago, reit real cuts not the fake washington cuts. they increased it, canada however made actual cuts, they cut agriculture department 22%. fisheries 27%, natural resources down almost 50%.

why? because their politicians moratorium sensible than ours, they acknowledged their spending was going to eat their future. >> in mid '90s canada finance minister said we're in debt up to our eyeballs, that can't be sustained, their debt level was as bad as ours is today almost 70% of their economy. >> i was growing up in canada people on un. insurance were said to go in pogey, you could work 8 weeks taking year off, curling playing hockey. john: play hockey all year. >> oh, yeah. john: no work for most of the year, in 1995, canadian leader cut unemployment benefits, and other programs, and as you see here canada's debt stopped increases and as canada ran budget surplus its debt has been going down. john: things got better. >> and economy boomed in 90,

government wastes most of what it spends so cutting government spending, and having that money be in hands of people, means it will be use more value abily. john: canada fired government workers, unemployment did not increase it dropped. dropped from 12% to 6%. when people are free to spend their own money, life gets better. more recently, in worldwide recession into president obama increasing spending with the massive stimulus, germany and squeeze en cut spending, swede -- sweden, the big welfare state, did they hurt economy growth? no, the opposite, sweden's economy grew governmenter than any othe-- faster man any other in europe, even u.s. tried it approach 1, start of coil war ended.

first president bush reduced military spending a republican congress kept president clinton's spending in check spending increases but not as fast as economy grew, the result was a planned budget and a booming economy, when people are free to spend their own money, life getting better we know what works, but it is not intuitive to people, to you, stossel viewers maybe but not normal less informed people, most importance see problem, and assume government must be the answer, that is why i wrote this book. when politicians say, we can solve your problems, we should say, no, they can't. inn individual solve problem, governments fail. politiciansen to want to hear that because they like spending other people's money. who doesn't. but it is not right. and it does not even work. that is why i say, hey big spenders, just stop it. that is our show, see you next

week. carson will be here. anna's three dogs.be here. it's a battle over jobs. the economy may have added more than expected last month, but both sides if washington agree, not enough. who's got the better plan to get the numbers up? >> lower tacks. >> cut tacks. >> lower tax rates. >> we need a job date. >> simple flat tax. >> cut tacks. >> plen fiof conservatives at cpac calling for tax cuts. while the president's new budget calls for a series of tax hikes. so whose got it right? hi, everyone, i'm brenda butner. this is the "bulls & bears." . welcome to everybody