>> has a spending problem. every dollar that it spends is taxed or borrowed and it is taxed from we the people. government spending is destructive to the economy. whether it is it discretioninary or not it needs to change now. >> it doesn't matter if it is. feven even if it is it a million bucks here and there. and eric it is worse than that. up said millions and millions, we are in the trillions. it is it an express of 3 trillion . a third of that is it being borrowed. we are spending way out of control and here is a bar chart. i don't know if you can see this right here. the dark part here is it what we are borrowing each year. that is a third of the amount much money . it is it outrageous and they can cut it in every place and they don't do it. >> you can stee the crazy thingings we are spending our money on. chinese swine study. 141,000. let's lookalt the next one. jordanian hooka habitings whampt is that? and reality tv show in india we spend 20 million and amtrak food beverages. 84 million. cram cramcongr

entitlement spending. here we go, more entitlement spending. will this increase in spending with the medicaid expansions and the new exchange subsidies reduce health care costs growth as we look at the growth down the road? >> the affordable care act had a number of different pieces. the expansion of insurance coverage, we now estimates will cost $1.3 trillion over the 2013-2023 period. >> let me interrupt you there and make sure i understand, $1.3 trillion more than what was anticipated in previous outlooks of the program, is that correct? >> i'm saying that the costs of the coverage expansion relative to a world that did not have that coverage expansion. extra costs of $1.3 trillion. we have had many changes to the coverage expansion but netted out to very little change on balance for any given period of years. our estimates through 2019 are now actually slightly below what they were when we first estimated the effects of that expansion three years ago. as one moves the budget window further along, one has to look at larger numbers for this e

some people would get paid more, which they could then spend and would presumably spend.also true, we think there would probably be a small reduction in employment because the cost of workers would go up. we have not try to work through those affects or others. it also depends how much minimum wage is increased and how the increase compares with what is the current minimum wage in many states. in many states, there is a different matte minimum wage. >> we would lose 750,000 jobs in sequester? >> taking away the sequester would have a noticeable effect in our judgment on output and jobs over the rest of this year. >> give mentioned a loss of confidence in the government's ability to manage its affairs could trigger a fiscal crisis where our ability to borrow is reduced? >> that is right. >> would it be reasonable, confronting a fiscal cliff in january, potential debt ceiling default in march, sequestration, or ceiling default in february, sequestration in march, government shut down in april, another potential debt ceiling in may, could shake the confidence of some investo

no spending, even wasteful spending, should be cut. that's what he said. and he's a trillion dollars ahead on spending versus revenues. we've cut $7 of spending for every $3 of revenue, even though right now government revenue, united states government revenue, is at its lowest percentage of g.d.p. in more than 50 years, more than half a century. and our proposal going forward is 50-50, spending cuts and revenues. so let's not pretend that we're immune to or allergic to spending cuts. there have been more spending cuts than new revenues. we've tried to find a balanced approach. and so far, in this $2.4 trillion, we haven't even looked at tax loopholes, at the spending that happens through the tax code that mostly benefits big corporations, special interests, and super high-end american earners. now, take a look at how big that amount is. we collect in individual income tax revenue a little over a trillion dollars every year from individuals. but the total liability of individuals under the tax code is over $2 trillion. what happens to this other $1.02 tril

by decline in defense spending. we made budget room for extra spending in those programs in the past by reducing the share of the economy's resources that are being devoted to defense. that's not a strategy that can be repeated in that magnitude over the next 40 years, because defense spending has come way down as a share of g.d.p. and because of demographic pressures and the spending of those programs are so intense. we had never really confronted i think quite the pressure to either change spending or to raise tax revenue in the way we are confronting it now. any other questions? ok. thank you all very much for coming. \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow, chris van hollen. he talked about the federal debt and deficit sequestration settled began on march 1. working with paul ryan on the budget. the amount is a new tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern and again at 6:00 eastern. >> will continue our discussion on the economy and nati

spending occurs. basically you're right if the government is paying people to build battleships or paying people to build other sorts of equipment or structures, then those will have comparable effects dollar for dollar on the economy output and on jobs. >> i never understood the logic as to how cuts to defense, meaning not building as many tanks or battleships, somehow costs jobs but cuts to other government spending somehow do not cost jobs. obviously when you invest money to build roads and bridges and other transportation systems, you're putting people to work doing things that are productive for our economy. if it's scientists at n.i.h. or other people around the country, those are grants being spent to try to find treatments and cures for life-saving diseases, it would be absolutely counterproductive in terms of our long-term competitiveness, let alone the health of our people, to have those kinds of cuts take place. on top of that, those long-term negative impacts, you've got the job loss, 750,

a majority of people said they actually want to increase spending in two category. 53% want to spend more on veteran's benefits, and 60% want to spend more on education. education, which by the way, gets hit pretty hard by the sequester. now, maybe we need to change or relationship status rather than our policies. because the american people actually seem to like the services the federal government provides. and they approve of the spending the federal government does to provide the services, rightly or wrongly they approve. that is the reality. and that is the problem that the republicans are facing. the house republicans did pass a plan to replace this year's sequester with other spending cuts, passing the house in december. it would abolish the defense cuts and move the $1.2 trillion cuts entirely, entirely to the discretionary spending side. now, for the record, only 19 categories of the pew polled are discretionary, others are categories where congressional republicans want to see reduced spending. cuts to entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid, that is what john boehner wante

spending is increasing dramatically. when we first came to congress, we appropriated two-thirds of spending. now it is the third. antoniewicz took up one-third of spending and now it is two- thirds. -- entitlements took up one- third of spending and now it is two-thirds. we have made -- the white house has made no effort to help us rein in the entitlement spending. >> if the white house does but something for an entitlement spending, will republicans, yourself, would you agree to corporate loopholes, as the president said in the state of the union? >> i think the loopholes and to be looked at. the ways and means committee is working now on a tax reform package, which includes loophole closures. that will take time. that is something that we don't have at the moment, time. the entitlements spending is where the action needs to take place. if we eliminated every penny we appropriate for every agency, including the military, if we did away with all discretionary spending, we would still be in the red. and ... it's a good to

our spending on science is down, spending on technology is down.t how to rebalance this is the key. the good news is we don't need that much money for investment. we're spending trillions as you say on consumption, on transfer payments if we could move some of that money into education, science, infrastructure, it would have a big bang. >> in the context of the current debate we're having, some people focused on waste and mismanagement in government. in fact this is the bigger long-term issue. we've got an older population. an aging population. we need to somehow figure out a way to balance this out. it's become politically charged to have this conversation. so when i say, when people say i don't want to run up bills that my grandchildren are going to end up paying. what's the best counterargument? >> i think what people have to understand is that there are two kinds of spending as you point out if you're running up a bill by building bridges, that will last 150 years, and fuel economic activity, imagine what the interstate highway system did to th

problem by spending more. and like he me saying on pluto i'm svelte, and on earth i'm not. and we have to wake up and worries me you, the journalist, probably one of best with the numbers i know. obviously can look at the numbers and say i'm taking the path that things are okay. >> the state of the union speeches are high level laundry lists as gerri said, said we need to do both, cut the-- >> take the laundry out and it's done with the stupid speeches we should stop state of the union, makes no difference whatsoever. >> have a state of the union, but hold him accountable. where is the new york times on this? and i'm just-- add it up. >> neil: meanwhile, when we come back, if you build it the jobs will come. that's what the white house is to say with a new 50 billion dollar plan for vacant and foreclosed homes and saying it will lead to a jobs boom. and some of the forbes gang saying more like-- up next, bigger airlines and planes a lot more angry passengers. and i'm molly line, you're watching the most powerf

is this the wrong time to be cutting any spend in addition washington? do we risk any sort of cracks in the economy if we go through with these, no matter how they're composed? >> i think it is a rich and that's why i think we need a balanced approach. the senate and house working together have already reduced spending by about $1.4 trillion and there was a $600 billion increase in revenue. the right way to fix it going forward is a balanced approach that doesn't cut too deeply. just use the virginia example. yesterday, governor mcdonnell, my governor, you'll have him on in a minute, worked on a legislature of democrat schedules republicans for a compromised transportation package that reduced spending in some line items and increased revenues. it was a balanced approach. he had to buck grover norquist to do it. it wasn't perfect, because compromises aren't perfect but it's that kind of balanced approach that will preserve armed services and defense and enable our economy to grow instead of choking off as aware whatwe're seeing as a strong stock market a

the mandatory spending is increasing dramatically. when i first came to congress, we appropriated 2/3 of federal spending. now it's a 1/3. when i came, we were -- entitlements took up 1/3 of spending, now it's 2/3. we've actually cut what we appropriate in the last two years by $95 billion, so discretionary spending, which is what we control, is going down. first time since world war ii since we ended world war ii. but we've made no -- the white house has made no efforts to help us rein in the entitlement spending. >> if the white house does put something forward on entitlement spending, will republicans, yourself, you can only speak for yourself, but would you agree to closing corporate lools, as the president said in his -- loopholes as the president said in his state of the union. >> they should be looked at. and the ways and means committee, dave camp, chairman, they're working now on a tax reform package which would include lool closings -- loophole closing which would take time and that's something we don't have at the moment, t

it is a spending problem. and right now, the president's taking spending from 20% of the economy to about 25 and it's on its way to 40. i mean, at this spending trajectory, working families are going to have tax rates that will make france's new socialist president blush, can't do it. >> congressman, just heard the chairman say i agree maybe by working families and mr. chairman, we're going to agree that we need to raise the minimum wage for working families so that they can have and earn more money and that's something that i think that we can agree upon, what i'd like to do-- >> what we actually need is maximum opportunity and we're not going to get maximum student when your party and this president taxes small businesses, when we put crushing regulatory burdens like obamacare and dodd frank on them and-- >> and can we agree to the minimum wage? >> and i have the last question. >> we're not talking about the-- >> and how to word it. >> an opportunity. >> we want opportunity and you're-- >> so you don't care

by 2022 it will spend $2 trillion more than it is spending today. 2.4% of total federal spending. if the federal government can't cut three cents out of every dollar without throwing us into the dark ages, then clearly we're doing something wrong. >> all right, alice rivlin. simpson/bowles, i mentioned that, they're at it again. listen to this. >> to get this done we're going to have to -- this was clear at the end of last year. we're going to have to push both sides out of their comfort zone. the republicans are going to have to accept more revenue. the democrats are going to have to accept for cuts in our health care spending. that's the only way we can reach a compromise that really makes sense and solves our long-term deficit problem. >> alice, that's erskine bowles, you know him well, simpson/bowles 2.0 proposes $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction versus the $1.5 trillion the president is looking for, also requires tax increases. does this new plan have any chance of going anywhere? >> well, what has a chance of going somewhere if the president

and the caps on discretionary spending will restrain spending. after 2017, though, spending in our projections starts growing again as a percentage of g.d.p. the aging of the population, increasing health care costs and a significant expansion of eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will push up spending on social security and the major health care programs. in addition, the return of interest rates to more normal levels will push up interest payments to their highest share of g.d.p. in five decades. during the past 40 years, federal spending has averaged 21% of g.d.p. in our projection for 2023, spending is about 23% of g.d.p. and rising. what would debt look like under those circumstances? we expect that, again, under current law, federal debt held by the public will reach 76 of g.d.p. by the end of this fiscal year. the largest percentage since 1950. >> as recently as 2007, debt was only 36% of g.d.p. debt would be 70% of -- 77% of g.d.p. and rising. rough stability in debt as a share of g.d.p. over the next 10 years would be

is it a spending problem? there seems to be confusion. >> i love when you come to washington. >> there is a spending problem in the sense that the president himself has talked about. in the long run and i thought the congressman was correct about this. it comes down to health care. in the near term, actually cutting spending too much is a drag on the current economy. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't plot a course on the economy, we should. she pointed out clearly that a big head wind on this economy is that we are doing the fiscal constraint way too soon. look at the politics of this. it is a stalemate here on wap toll hill. republicans think the president is going to come to the hill tonight and talk about spending. they are not ready to give at all on taxes. >> so, listen to me. is he going to move to the senate. you said those two were talking past each other. the question i have is, if president obama knows that the republican house majority will not take another tax increase whatever you call it. then

so you can spend less time...ea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola. we all work remotely so this is a big deal, our first full team gathering! i wanted to call on a few people. ashley, ashley marshall... here. since we're often all on the move, ashley suggested we use fedex office to hold packages for us. great job. [ applause ] thank you. and on a protocol note, i'd like to talk to tim hill about his tendency to use all caps in emails. [ shouting ] oh i'm sorry guys. ah sometimes the caps lock gets stuck on my keyboard. hey do you wanna get a drink later? [ male announcer ] hold packages at any fedex office location. >> neil: all that plastic foam and shove it? new york city mayor saying that plastic foam has to go, but is the n >>. >> neil: fir

this spending is good. and of course it's an absurdity. what it means is we march into a debt crisis, this white house has an intention to take us to $26 trillion in debt that has an adverse impact on the businesses in my district in suburban chicago. it will have an impact on interest rates over the long run. has an impact on small families and the act to get car loans and all of these other things. so we've got to have our heads in the game, hold this president's feet to the fire as it relates to spending and make sure that he's following through on the spending discipline that he celebrates. >> so just to put a wrap on this, the position on the gop in the house will be nothing in effect. just let the sequester go through in 21 days, less than a month. >> right. so the sequester is the president's sequester. it is current law. and if the president has an idea about how to change it, we would love to work with the white house, but i'm telling you what's not going to happen, taxes are not going to go up und

what we have so far is balanced spending cuts and revenue, but far more spending cuts.hink what we need to do going forward is the type of balance that the president had when he put forward his offer. melissa: counting savings from the series of continuing resolutions, frozen budgets they were already baked in a matter who was the president. those would bean or recounted. >> whoever is saying that -- that is not an accurate view of the budget. thisis ithe budget control act. 174 republicans voted. the speaker said it cut 98 percent of what he wanted. and it included very deep cuts in disretionary spending that put us on the path to have the lowest discretionary spending since the eisenhower administration. that is well over a trillion dollars in spending cuts. there were two or 300 billion of additional spending cuts. together those spending cuts with revenue in the interest we say when we lower the deficit means we cut to a half trillion with out 75 percent of that being from spending cuts. melissa: and let you bring that up bause a lot of critics said accounting net i

spending leveled off in the one nine hundred ninety s. but the perpetual war machine continued to grind on there was desert storm and iraq military intervention in kosovo air strikes in sudan another bombing raid on iraq to close out the decade and then george w. bush moved into the white house and i don't love it happened and then this happened to military spending it went up when up a lot to new wars were started in a brand new covert drone warfare program was unleashed all across the planet our defense budget tripled under bush and then obama we now spend upwards of a trillion dollars every year to maintain this deal with the devil of war we have between seven hundred and one thousand military bases of all sizes and purposes on the planet they include massive installments like force base in afghanistan and small secret facilities in africa used primarily to launch drones or defense and war spending that we have ninety four percent of all federal income tax revenue that means almost every single dollar that you and i and everyone else i

so you can spend less time... yea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola. [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] we created the luxury crossover and kept turning the page, writing the next chapter for the rx and lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection. the battle of bataan, 1942. [ all ] fort benning, georgia, in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve the military, veterans, and their families is without equal. begin your legacy. get an auto-insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve. >>> that was pretty close. a massive asteroid headed toward earth and barely misses earth. in russia arc meteor

so you can spend less time... yea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola. >> first the sandy hit, and now the tax man hit. the new york city officials hiking the property values for some homes actually hit by sandy, some by ten office thousands of dollars. that means higher taxes. home owners getting hit with the higher bills calling it heartless. dan has some other names. how did his happen? >> a convoluted and arcane system in new york city. they allow a cap of 6% per year of increases, but they bank the rest of it. so even in years when there are decreases, unless you caught up to what they consider market value, they're still allowed to tack it on and they did, despite the fact that almost every elected official says this is not the year to do th

, the talk about spending cuts there is nothing there, they are cutting the rate of spending, i don't know where to start with this. almost speechless trying to talk about this. neil: chris do, you believe, that is sequestration thing, by adding revenue to something that before was supposed to be all about cuts that was it? >> yeah, i think this is a case of moving the goal post, the problem got split into 2 in late december, we were trying to figure this out, a revenue piece and a spending piece, they did the revenue piece, a lot of stuff was. >> this there republicans did not like, but it had to happen. so now we have to dole with spending piece, -- we have to deal with the spending piece, if you want to reform the tax code this is find, but not under auspices of let's reform the tax code to cut spending. neil: i want you all back as well, in the meantime, player mike, -- mayor mike, a lot of folks saying acting like nanny mike. cities everywhere about to have a fit. the american dream is of a better future, a confident retirement. those dreams hav taken a beating lately. but no way

you don't want more or less spend. you want high value spending. saying you're getting a lot of health benefit in the dollar. >> i think it's in the way the system set up. the consumers want more and more. we talk about innovation and health care. all that have innovation does have a potential impact of actually driving costs up not down. >> absolutely. i think it's an area where we agree that rather tremendous ib efficiency in the system and there's a disagreement as to pushing the decision more toward government or more toward individuals is going to reduce the level of spending. the principle driver of the growth in health care spending is the adoption of new, you know, it's we're consuming more and better health care. the new drugs are making lots of our lives better. it means we are spending more. just as we are spending more on smartphone services. >> i love take the president absolutely as part of health care reform the containment of cost a part of the big -- a big part of the he was always very clear -- there there was two parts. the expan

spends more on health care than the san countries combined. >> we spend more than everybody.spend 50 percent more on the same prescription drug as any of those countries have to spend. it is because we sort of live in a fantasy that medical care can be the competitive open free-market when it is not. gerri: if you go out, buy a pair of shoes, walking into a shoe store and you can decide that there too expensive. better yet, you can get to another shoe store. gerri: that is at the time to figure out what the price tag is. you have no choice. this story almost to not get to print because it was commissioned by another magazine entirely. what happened. >> it was going to get to print. i made a decision that it would be published in the new republic and then they tell me if they would bunted for an interview with president obama. i shifted it to another magazine. gerri: solutions. the most importance solution out there to this problem which is unbelievable. >> we have to acknowledge again that is up the same as you buying a pair of shoes. it is a market -- gerri: should it be mor

think that's part of the kooky theater but when we look at it on the spending trajectory. this seaquest race would only take us back to two thousand and seven levels and i think that most of us around this table would agree that we weren't hurting back in two thousand and seven in terms of our readiness so tony this is really all about money it's not about defense right right well as we know from education simply throwing money at education doesn't make people smarter simply throwing money at the military doesn't make you smarter right there were no effective defense that's right we need an effective defense not an expensive defense and this is the key i mean when you look at other spending let's take china for example the one of the rhetorical points here is oh my goodness the chinese are spending more on their defense but they don't look at the entire picture for example the chinese are spending as much and researching and trying to support sources of possible water just think about this they're spending as much on trying to find water for their people as they are on def

and $85 billion in spending cuts, at a time when businesses aren't spending and consumers aren't spending and state and local governments are cutting back, and $86 billion in spending cuts, will push people to be concerned about the economic recovery. that is not the right time to be doing this kind of austerity. >> susie: so what do you see as not only the economic impact, but the wall street impact, and how will rating agencies respond to something like that? >> what you need to know, what i think is going to happen, the sequester will hit on march 1. by the time they get to negotiate the continuing resolution, the potential government shutdown at the end of the month, i think everybody will throw up their hands and say let's just stop this sequester. it is the wrong politics, and so the deficit won't be reduced. that, lithe i think will make rating agencies feel a little better because economic growth will feel a little higher. but will make them feel better is if it is combined with a long-term reduction trend. >> susie: i think what people want to know is when do we get things back t

cut spending.hat did the economy do when bill clinton worked with the republicans to cut spending? the economy boomed. that's your model. >> but it's the sequester, which means you that can't cut spending smartly. it's just across-the-board random cuts. i'm for cuts. i'm one that will agree that we do have to cut spending. but we've got to do it in a balanced way. we've got to cut spending. i don't think anyone will argue that. we cut spending before in the budget control act. we cut some spending. but we do believe it's got to be done in a balanced way, that we cut spending because the ultimate goal is to have a balanced budget. cut spending and find more revenue, collect it together. >> i knew the r word was coming. >> absolutely. >> i knew the r word was coming. it was coming up here. bob costa, let me just ask you. i'm looking at the late posting on the "new york times" website. democrats press gop to start talks to avert budget crisis. this is with six days to go. but in the democratic plan is

board spending cuts. it was all spending. and what he's essentially doing is saying, now, i want taxes out of this. and he did get taxes, he got 620 billion dollars in new taxes on january the 1st. so, right now, greta for republicans in congress the tax issue has been settled and this is now about what are w going to do to rein in out of control government spending and 85 billion dollars, again, we're talking about the equivalent of the amount that the federal government borrows every single month. >> senator, nice to see you, sir. >> thank you, greta. >> while speaker boehner is hammering, jim demint a hammering over the tax hikes, what is going on that the president knows the tax hikes are going to hurt so he's blaming the sequester. >> good evening, greta. >> most of the media so sold out to obama that they're missing the obvious here, the policies that the president has in place, especially tax increases that just got in, are going to hurt our economy. probably actually bring it down. the president i

count as spending. we regulate. when the government says put this on your car and therefore, the auto companies do it and charge people higher prices for their car, that may have a good benefit cost ratio but it doesn't show up as spending the money. so regulations is a substitute and tax expenditures are a substitute for spending. so you would need to have some complementary legislation or safety valve to prevent that you could tighten if all of a sudden the spending cap started to bind and edging into regulation and tax expenditures. the other is when you look at spending, there is this fundamental fack of arith ma tick we can't get around that present discount of taxes has to equal future spending plus the national debt. the government has to pay its bills now or later. a dollar of borrowing now means the interest tomorrow has to be raised to pay off the interest. so with that in mind, it's very, very important that the spending caps be reasonable and bind and there is some mechanism by which we don'

are you really saying in a government that spends $3.5 trillion a year increased discretionary spending by 14% in the last four years you can't $85 billion to cut to avoid the sequester. >> we have made the cut in terms of agriculture subsidies. there are tens of billions of dollars in cuts there. and that should be balanced with eliminating subsidies for big oil. why should we lower pell grants instead of eliminating the subsidies for big oil? >> chris: why not just cut spending. 85 billion north dakota a $3.5 trillion government. >> let's just back up from with all due respect to the speaker what he said is not the gospel truth. the fact is that a lot of the spending increases came during the bush administration. two unpaid for wars that we got ourselves engaged in. prescription drug plan that added enormous amounts to our spending and the tax cuts of the high end that did not create jobs and create revenue coming in. >> chris: but the total debt has increased $5 trillion sense this president came in. >> well, part of that is from the what we had to do to avoid going over the cliff of

so you can spend less time... yea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola. >> announcer: stop! living with hair loss, that is. losing your hair is no fun and no one wants to be bald, but there is hope. >> getting my hair back was the best thing that ever happened to me. >> i'm happy with the way i look now. >> i'm very excited about my hair. >> i feel beautiful. >> i love my hair. >> announcer: hair club offers all-proven hair loss solutions backed by our commitment to satisfaction guaranteed. if you're not 100% satisfied with the solution you choose, hair club will apply the purchase price to another proven hair loss solution or transplant more hair at no charge. >> and that was the best thing i've ever done. >> it looks good on me. >> announcer: cal

that's part of the theater but when we look at it on the spending trajectory. this seaquest race you would only take us back to two thousand and seven levels and i think that most of us around this table would agree that we were hurting back in two thousand and seven in terms of our readiness so tony this is really all about money it's not about defense right right well as we know from education simply throwing money at education doesn't make people smarter simply throwing money at the military doesn't make us smarter either we're going to affect the defense that's right we need an affective defense not an expensive defense and this is the key i mean when you look at other spending let's take china for example the one of the rhetorical points here is oh my goodness the chinese are spending more on their defense but they don't look at the entire picture for example the chinese are spending as much and researching and trying to support sources of potable water just think about this they're spending as much on trying to find water for their people as they are of d

reckless rough spending reductions, some spending cuts are better than no spending cuts.nd these reckless rough spending cuts or so-called reckless and rough spending cuts are better than any tax increase. a penny of tax increase i don't think would get 50% of the republican caucus and nothing like 100% of the republican caucus. >> jim, what's going on? what do you think is going on with this phone call today? >> first, about the closing the loopholes which by the way those are tax hikes. depends on what you want to do with the money. do you want to use it for lowering the tax deficit. it will increase the tax burden. that's a stunner, that would even come up. i don't think that's going to happen. republicans are a little worried which is why there's talk of passing some sort of bill which would give the administration greater flexibility to manage these cuts. but that aside, i'm pretty confident these cuts are absolutely going through. >> okay. let's look at this. what about all this rhetoric. ed rogers you've seen a few of they. i've seen a few of these government debat

so you can spend less time...ea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola. >> chris: this week he took on democrats and republicans in his tea party response to the president's state of the union address. here are with his critique of both parties is senator rand paul of kentucky. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good morning. >> chris: we will get to the president in a moment. let's start with the republicans. you say the sequester is fine, even the 40 plus billion dollars that the pentagon would take in military spending cuts. you just heard senator graham say no, it isn't fine that that would further jeopardize our national security. >>> well, ideally we would have done the right thing and that is pass appropriations bills and reduce spending wh

a spending problem. driving these higher prices? in part, your we go, refinery maintenance under way i the company's switch to summer blen of gasoline. investor speculation. you always have to be upset about speculation. higher crude oil prices and, of course, rising tensions in the middle east, syria, libya, yemen. we will take all of this up with the executive editor of the oil price information service here tonight. and i will make him tell us when we can get a break at the pump. stay with us. it destroyed, another $14 billion in the whole. could it be that an obama bailout loans? the "a-team" response. vice-president biden is nothing, if not entertaining. his unexpected advice has conservatives laughing and liberals not so amused. crude oil rising, gasoline prices still rising. we will take a look at the math and the reasons behind the run-up in energy prices. ♪ [ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back