each year we pass the amt. >> will the witness answer the simple question? i just asked a simple question. >> it's a more accurate reflection of what we're going to spend. >> will it spend more or less? >> just some of the exchanges earlier today on capitol hill as members of the president's administration provide details to members of congress on the 2013 spending blueprint. that exchange with senator jeff sessions, republican of alabama, and the acting director of the office of management and budget, jeffrey zions before the senate budget committee. welcome to hour one of "washington today" on c-span radio. thanks for being with us. a new poll out showing that rick santorum and mitt romney essentially tied in the race. this is the latest from the abc news/"washington post" poll. the survey shows rick santorum is increasing his popularity a week and a day before the next round of primaries that will take place in -- the next debate that will take place in two weeks before the next round of primaries in arizona and in michigan. a couple of new ads on the air

each year we are passing the amt. >> the witness is not answering a simple question. >> it is a more accurate reflection of what we're going to spend. >> will it spend more or less? >> it will actually spend less money because of the deficit reduction we have and the baseline of the reflection of the current policy. >> because of the deficit reduction that is caused by increased taxes. let's would back to the question. your budget proposes eliminating the sequester, the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts we all agreed to last year, difficult as it was, that's a $1.2 trillion increase in spending, is it not? >> no, it isn't. >> why is it not? we agreed to current law to cut reduced projected spending rate by $1.2 trillion. you eliminate that. that means you intend to spend that, do you not? >> this is a very important point. the president is not proposing that the sequester go away. the sequester is a very important forcing function for us to do deficit reduction. so the sequester will be replaced with a balanced approach to deficit reduction. >> you are replacing the sequester? >> it is

in other words, the bush budget assumed that we weren't going to fix the amt. they assumed for ten years the amt would spring back into effect and you'd have a tax increase on 25 million americans. they assumed we'd never take care of the doc fix. and so if you were to convert president obama's budget into the president bush methodology, you'd get the following. let me go to the next slide, please. the top red line is the president's budget using the straight-forward accounting techniques and says 2.8% of gdp. that blue line, that's what president obama's budget could claim if you used the bush administration's accounting gimmicks. so the secretary's acknowledged that we've got a lot of work to do as we deal with the demographic changes ten years and beyond. >> what that tells me is the enemy is omb. >> what it tells me is that -- that this is -- well, except for in this case omb actually did it the way i think we'd want them to do in terms of calculating the likely outcome. now, i just want to end with this. because i do have -- [ no audio ] i have to leave ea

also on the list: whole gra, olive oil and a moderate amt of alcohol. this is the first study to examine the effects of a mediterranean t on the brain. a new fda report might haveu making-over your beauty rou. the agency recently tested 0 popular lipsticks for lead.d found it, in each and every. shades by l'oreal, cover gil and maybelline were among te worst offenders. but, the fda says the levele too low to pose a safety ri. scientists say trace amountf lead often appear naturallyn mineral-based color-additiv. coming soon to neighborhoodl over the country. this: an orange county couple turned their e into a giant billboard. a marketing company came up wh the idea. it's offers to pay a homeowner's mortgage,n exchange for the advertising space. "we're a really out of the x company, we're a marketing company.." butt to he thougt would help with the mortgage payments but it was like wig the lottery the company hopes to turn one-thousand homes across te country into advertisements. time is 4-- here's lawrence with a check of weather. ((4-shot everyone at de

. >> when you were budget director, there was no money in there for the amt, there was no money in there for war spending, there was no money in there for emergency spending, they would say those budgets were a ginobili agiven and were dead on arrival. >> the president's budget was taken to the floor last year and you would expect it if you're right becomes partisan that you would have had a majority of the senate support it. and the vote was 97-0, and we don't know what the vote would be on this budget, but i will tell you it looks an awful lot like last year, and it's irresponsible given the fact that it does not address the long-term challenges. means testing occurs after the next presidential term. so to this point about austerity. and it doesn't make any of the tough decisions. so, look, as i said earlier, you would expect in a particular year, budgets to be relatively political documents. but this one, as i said, i believe is over the line because it doesn't have any savings. when you bgo through the analyss of what's actually in there, it simply does not have any impact on this lo

the extension of the amt and sgr, the presentation we believe is more honest than patching these year after year. enforcement of the bca caps and joint committee sequester. and accounting for future disaster costs rather than ignoring them. the baseline results in annual deficit of 4.7% of gdp at the end of the budget window in 2022. this is where we start out before our policy takes effect. let me now turn to our deficit reduction policies. last april, the president put forward a framework to achieve more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. you can see it here. i'll take a few minutes to walk through this. he maintained the $4 trillion commitment in his proposals to the joint committee last september. and this year's budget is very similar to the september proposal with the addition of a year to the budget window. as you can see on the far right in the green bar, the budget actually includes over $5 trillion of total deficit reduction with the addition of the extra year to the budget n wind window. let me walk you through the critical elements. i'll go left-to-right to build up to

>> i think we have a much more honest baseline, a base line that has sgr, amt, not patched year over year. >> well, you don't pay for the str, the doc fix, that's mott paid for. let's go back to the simple question i ask you. does your plan spend more money over the next ten years than the agreement in current law that we reached just last august? >> the base line here is -- >> yes or no. >> i think what we have to focus on here is the bottom line and we're taking deficits down to 2.of gdp. >> i asked a simple question. you're the director of the omb. does your budget call for spending -- >> it's a more honest budget. it looks at what's happening in a business as usual basis. each year we're passing the a.m.t. -- >> will the witness not answer a simple question. i just asked a simple question. >> it's a more reflection of a -- >> will it spend more or sfles. >> it will spend less money because of the deficit reduction and a baseline that we flebts the current policy. >> because a deficit reduction that can only be assumed that's caused by increased taxes. but let's go back to that qu

is being reduce by $4 trillion versus the business as usual approach of patching things like sgr and amt. >> anyway, so everybody understands we are not reducing the debt and deficit in this budget by $4 trillion. it's not happening. in response to what's a fair share, you quoted a couple of figures. so on the one hand you said it would be fair, fair share, that you'd be satisfied, democrats would never come to us again, saying the rich have to pay more, their fair share. at 39.6%. i didn't come prepared to put this on a chart, but congressman paul ryan has done a pretty effective job showing with the healthcare law, marginal tax rates are going to rise about 44.5%. so that would be above the fair share, wouldn't it? >> i'm sorry, i'm still focussed on your prior question. >> no, because i want to move on. so anyway, you said 39.6% top marginal tax rate would be the fair share. >> that's what the president is proposing in the budget law. >> but with the healthcare law and congressman ryan has laid this out we're at 44.5%. that's above the fair share. >> well, we're talking about ordinary

second, the permanent extension of amt and sgr, we believe this presentation is more honest and enforcement of the joint committee sequester and accounting for future disaster costs rather than ignoring them. the baseline results in an annual deficit of 4.7% of gdp at the end of the budget window in 2022. this is where we start before our policies take effect. let me now turn to our deficit reduction policy. last april, the president put forward a frame work to achieve more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. he maintained the $4 trillion in his proposal to the joint committee last september. this year's budget is very similar to the september proposal. with the addition of a year to the budget window. as you can see on the far right in that green bar, this budget includes $5 trillion of total deficit reduction. let me walk you through the key elements. you start on the far left, you'll see $676 billion in saiings from the appropriations bills enacted last year, including the 2011 appropriations in april and the saiings from the 2012 appropriations. next, over $1 trillion in reductions i

amt patch collapses and the budget control acts in effect spending cuts kick in. bad for the economy, good for the deficit is essentially where you. the second one is your alternative scenario. and it blocks most of the spending cuts required by the budget control act. something like this, according to your analysis makes the deficit much worse, but it's better for the economy. so that leaves us with these two scenarios that are singularly unappealing and probably compounded by the fact that if the congress does nothing, you have this kind of meltdown in the lame duck session of 2012, much like the lame duck session in 2010. so it won't surprise you -- i want to ask you about the third scenario, and pick un -- up on senator portman's point with respect to tax reform. on this, i understand your answer and respect it that you couldn't do a full kind of quantitative analysis of a third approach. so i want to start by picking up on statements you have made that are on the public record that ought on the encouraging for those of us in this kind of third space where we'

we abolish the amt. abolish the death tax. i take the corporate tax, again, simplification, lower rates. we have a 10% lower rate and we expand that lower rate and take all the other rates, consolidate it to one rate. 28% top rate. a 20% reduction from the 35% rate down to 28% which was ronald reagan's top rate. my feeling is, if it's good enough for ronald reagan, it's good enough for me. so we have a top rate of 28% and we have a simplified tax code, a simplified tax code which i'll discuss in a minute which is not completely flat, but we have things there for a reason, to help promote strong and healthy society. i also believe in reducing the size of government. that's key. you can't just cut taxes and reduce as a result in large part revenues to the federal government without creating a balance by reducing the size of government. that's important, too, to remove the regulatory burden from the people in this country. i propose $5 trillion in reduction over five years. that can be funny math for a lot of folks in america. we

quantifies those numbers and makes it clear that if you extend all of 2001, 2003 tax cuts and index amt, that adds 4.5 -- $4.5 trillion to the deficit. and the other extenders, tax extenders, if you continue those, it adds $839 billion. if you add the debt service on that, you get to over $6.3 trillion in revenue. and if you look at the cbo baseline deficits cumulative over ten years, they're just over $3 trillion. so the cost of continuing all those policies on the revenue side leads to a doubling of the deficit over the next ten years. so i want to make it clear. i am not proposing that we change all the current policies, but i think this does give us a very clear indication of the order of magnitude. well, i'll give a very clear example. $1 trillion of that is tax cuts by folks at the very top who -- and if you returned those tax rates to where they were during the carolina don administration, a period of great economic growth, that would be $1 trillion of that. i thinking we need to tackle this through tax reform, closing loop ho loopholes, sensible tax reform, but i think this unde

extending certain income tax and a estate tax provisions set to expire at the end of the year and indexing amt for inflation would have a direct effect on the deficit of 4.564 trillion dollars and then raise debt service by another $790 million. i believe it's the sum of those, robert that you're describing as $5.4 trillion. we don't have in this report, i think, an estimate of the effect of extending those provisions for all. but the highest income people. i believe in the staff of the joint committee on taxation have done proposals like that. they're the ones who do estimates. i believe their estimates have suggested that extending the, extending the expiring tax rates, except 20r the highest tax rates, the budgetary effect is about three-quarters or four-fifths of the total amount. so only a quarter or a fifth of the $5.4 billion is attributable to what happens to the expiration of the lower versions of the highest tax rates. >> of the total here, i think about four-fifths is the effect of extending all the tax revisions except the highest rates. so one-fifth, roughly is the effect of exten

total number we show in the outlook is $4.5 trillion for extending certain income tax and indexing the amt for inflation. so a fifth of $4.5 trillion is $900 billion. and some debt -- >> you say top income rate -- what's the cutoff? >> i don't remember the cutoff rates. they don't come from us. i don't have the numbers in hand. >> thank you, appreciate it. >> senator begich? >> thank you very much, thank you for being here. let me first ask -- it's interesting as i'm listening, i have been three years, kind of deja vu the debate we'll have. and the real question is how do we craft the right package and you have given some scenarios. and let me -- let me ask it in a question. do you believe to move this economy forward, get better revenue streams, reduce the deficit, create the right kind of mix, can you cut your way out of this? >> well -- >> if that's the only scenario that you have, that we're going to cut the budget. >> so our estimates say that if you were to have sharper cuts in spending, then those already embodied in current law. >> that means the automatic caps. >> we'd come back t

threw out a couple of federal government urs, if all the bush tax cuts were allowed to expire and the amt index, et cetera, they would raise about $6.3 trillion using static modeling, which those of us here don't always subscribe to. but $6.3 trillion over the ten years. and he also said that if it was just the wealthy, which i presume is $250,000 or more since that's the number the president has thrown out that would raise about a

that executive branch was one of the issues republicans wanted in the legislation but a number of amts at least 20 that were put forth before the senate many of which were shot down, this is just a sample of what the debate was like earlier today. you're going to hear from senator rand paul, a ron from kentucky as he outlines what was in his amendment. oppositionings from senator joe lieber of connecticut. we should point out the paul amendment went down in defeat. >> this amendment would say that those in the executive branch who decide loans and grants if them have a self-interest in the company or their family has a sel self-interest in the company ta they should not be making decisions awarding grants and loans. i think the idea that you should not make money off of government is an important one, but it's not just congress that this applies to. it should apply to the executive branch and we should not have hundreds of millions of dollars in loans even billions of dollars in loans dispensed by people who used to work for that company or whose family still works for that company. th

to get one republican vote we had to do $300 million, fix the amt and do tax cuts to get one republican vote in the senate. so there wasn't enough money pumped into the economy. and i know that's an unpopular thing to say in some quarters. but it is economics. it is based on what happened during world war ii and what we needed to do. so the fact that these numbers are parallel to what happened after the great depression, and you're talking about truman, well, it took a while for us to get out of that. so we've got to continue these policies, continue to cut the payroll taxes for next year. and allow that money to get back into the economy. but we also need, not to get on a complete rant here, but we also need long-term systemic changes for the economy. and i think president obama hit the nail on the head at the state of the union. community college, get kids back to work, more engineers, more investment in research and development, the sciences, nih, national science foundation, jump-starting the economy with a new green revolution. this is the way out. and we've stopped investing in th

which is the president's moniker, i guess, he created the moniker, it's warren buffett's, repealing the amt, which is a threat to the middle class, all very good things. and it allows warren buffett to pay a little more in taxes and allows his secretary to get a permanent tax cut. it's a good principle, it works. we got to work the math out to see that it has some degree of balance. but there are a few misgivings i have as you might imagine, knowing me as well as you do. first i think you're being a little too patient. by that i mean the administration is characterizing many of the ideas as long range principles for a tax code revamp that probably won't happen until the president's in his second term. my view is why wait. why shouldn't we be debating these issues now? i want to tell my republican colleagues it's my view that the buffett rule is going to be on the floor of this senate. we are going to debate it this year. now, maybe the same thing will happen on buffett, maybe the same thing will happen on buffett as happened on payroll tax. there will be such public outcry that some of our

is saying, and i agree with him, if you follow current law and all the bush tax cuts sunset and the amt grips people in their vice, you will have a negative fiscal drag of 2.5% of gdp, what the president is talking about is allowing the high end tax cuts to finally expire, now that is $866 billion of deficit reduction of ten years. and those are the people that -- >> they make all the decisions, they make all the decisions, larry. >> i do not disagree, but they are the ones who have been doing well in recent years. ? but they are the ones that you will kill, they are the ones that do the employment and jobs, they do all of that stuff and plus, jared, you'll not get the money. all the evidence suggests that when you raise tax rates on the rich, all they do is hire lawyers and accountants and income specialists they do all that and get around it. it's just clear. >> first of all, my point is if you look, it a corporate profit, they are not just back to where they were, they are past where they were before the dip. >> they are. >> and we do not see the employment, so right there i do not b

it has the permanent extension of the amt and the sdr -- sgr. permanent extension makes more sense than patching these year after year. it has the enforcement of gdp capps, an accounting for future disaster costs rather to in ignoring them. this accounts for four 0.7% of gdp at the end of the budget window in 2002. last april, the president offered a blueprint for achieving more than $4 trillion deficit reduction. he maintained that the men and in his proposal last september. this budget is very similar -- that commitment in his proposal last september. this budget is very similar to the september proposal. the budget actually includes over $5 trillion of total deficit reduction. let me walk you through the critical elements. i'm going to work from left to right. if you start on the far left, you will see 6 android $76 billion in savings from the appropriation bills enacted last year. -- $676 billion in savings from the appropriation bills enacted last year. moving right, over $1 trillion in reductions in discretionary spending, consistent with

and the amt and all the tax credits and all the business benes and 100% depreciation and the automaticequester. when the congress is faced with that in a lame-duck session, it will be paralyzed, frozen. >> there is a huge risk at the end of the year, a fiscal train wreck, as you put it. the bush tax cuts retire, that's a huge wallop to a very fragile economy. i'm looking for something to be optimistic about. one of the problems is, we've now had three years or two years where we've had a recovery start at the beginning of the year, and it's been knocked off course by seemingly unexpected ee veve like the eurozone, like the middle east. you get the feeling every time this happens, best and consumers, they get more skeptical and scared about the future. if you look at companies, there's a fascinating thing happening in the latest earnings season which is that four out of five companies are refusing to make any predictions of the future because they simply cannot work out where the world's going. so you look at things like the budget problems coming along, the brick wall in december. you

sobrepoblaciÓn de 80% por encima de su capacidadÉe algunos presos resultaron heridos por disparos.spierta amtfondo de un ivisionn la sargento larson coao, dijo que la aision@@ierta@ mayorÍa de los pescadores lograron salir de la nieve por sÍ mismos, pero otros cuatro habÍa caído mÁs abajo. entre ellos una mujer, que portaba una especie de bolsa de aire que le permitiÓ sobrevivir hasta ser rescatada, pero otros tres hombres no sobrevivieron. la sargento dice que sus compaÑeros le dieron los primeros @@spierta americaunivir pudieron americunivndespresucit eran esquiadores ionderta am experimentados, bien conocidos.e >> el comisario de la unidad de bÚsqueda y salvamento de la oficina del alguacil dijo que habÍan caído mÁs de dos vÍas de nieve y que se habÍa emitido la alerta de peligro de avalancha.@@ >> entre las clases cabo el director de mercadeo del centro vacacional, y en otro accidente ficaciÓivisiot la despmisma regiÓn otro esquia por lo que hubo un total de cuatro abortos. -muertos. >> muchas gracias, salvo ionde- ahora con una tormenta a ameriv que causÓ numerosos accidente durante el f

en un sÓlo parto, se estila que tengan de 4 a 8 univn@@despierta americaÉa esunionfotos deiosas,rta amtesr! >> somos nosotros. >> miren, los hispanos, los latinos cuando llegamos a este paÍs sobre el lugar del mundo ganamos. >> puede ser en los deportes, en el teatro, siempre estamos sobresaliendo. >> estamos hablando de juan pablo montoya en las 500 millas de daytona que ya estÁ casi listo. >> @@despierta americaunivisionn >> en fÓrmula uno el carro tiene mucha tecnologÍa son muy rÁpido pero al mismo tiempo afecta que las carreras no sean buenas, en nascar estÁ más controlado. >> ¿fue muy difÍcil hacer el cambio? >> los primeros aÑos fueron muy duros. porque el carro, la reacciÓn es completamente diferente, entonces ha sido duro pero al tercer ganamos un par de carreras. >> ¿has sentido miedo? >> cuando uno va en reversa siente miedo porque sabe que va a pegarse uno, "esto va a doler". >> con la misma tranquilidad y confianza su esposa afronta cada carrera. >> que no se daÑe el carro, que no choque. >> es difÍcil controlar 43 carros a tanta velocidad. todos creen estar en primer lugar pe

a baseline that has sg our, amt patched year-over-year. >> you don't pay for the st are. that's not pay for. let's go back to the simple question i asked you. it does your plan spend more money over the next ten years. if we just reached last august. >> the baseline -- >> no camano camano. it's been a clear focus on the bottom line to the deficits down to 2.8% to the estimate he will be answering my question. you're the director of the omb. do you call for spending more money -- >> a more honest budget that looks at what is happening in the business as usual basis. each year we are passing. >> i just asked a simple question. >> it is a more accurate reflection of what we are going to spend. >> will it spend more or less? >> it will actually spend less money because of the deficit reduction that we have come and a baseline and reflect of the current policy. >> because of the deficit reduction can only be assumed that caused by increased taxes. but let's go back to that question. you're budget proposes eliminating the sequester than the $1.2 trillion of spending cuts we all

amt is a big horrible, why? and it only captured a handful of rich people, how did that turn out several congresses later? several presidents later? the people in washington have no self-control, everything goes on in an election cycle except for the fate of my kid. >> do you know what, rick, i love -- see, like you are some proprietary, like, asset, the jewel or the lemon and you are doing less as you are going back. i'm glad i got you to say something here. >> we don't need to save it. we just need to monitor the issues and, do you know what, we're not going to be pulling the levers for many, many, many months and all this circus stuff that's on tv and the newspapers will end. >> let's talk about the policy prescription here, rick, you're saying we need to cut spending right now. >> pro-growth, stop spending. we can't -- >> cut unemployment insurance benefits and we need to dial back -- >> oh, my god, i'm completely incorrect! >> you've gotten so much of what you wanted and not claimed any credit for it. >> na

despiemos a tom la llamada de rocÍo, estÁ un poco deprimiicaunivision@@despi ericacuÉunivision@@despierta amtodo esto porque el talismÁn, mi querido raÚl y carla, son elementos a los cuales le concedemos un poder, Éste es como una esfera que va rodando y la hacemos fluir en nuestra casa, pero como siempre se han tocado antes de llegar a nuestras manos, yo prefiero que lo limpiemos con una esencia, puede ser simplemente, suerte rÁpida, sándalo chino rojo, y la tenemos limpia o de la colonia preferida de ustedes. ahora por ejemplo Ésta tiene americjitos, especÍficos tibetanos, se coloca en la mano derecha y lo vamos a cargar como protecciÓn yo aquÍ tengo activadores energÉticos pero fÍjense, antes de llegar a nuestras manos fÍjense aquí estÁn ivision@@despierta americ confieran tanto poder a un talismÁn, sino que haga usted una oraciÓn ante un ser divino como es dios, que Ésta sea la protecciÓn mÍa durante el tiempo que ustedes lo deseen. ahora mi querida rocÍo, lo que estoy viendo corazÓn es que ese hombre estÁ pidiendo el divorcio pero yo lo veo viviendo contigo, ¿es asÍ? >> sÍ, Él vive conmi

remember, amt, alternative minimum tax will hit 30 million people.ains and dividend taxes are scheduled to go up. personal income tax rates, the one you mentioned the payroll tax. that is big bomb to drop on the economy come january 2013. the reason --. bill: it is a bigs misnomer to think this only affects the rich? this cuts across for everyone, right? >> correct. president's budget says this will only hit people over $200,000. let's assume that is the case. you will still have real harm to the economy. i'm economist. i belief if we allow the tax bomb to detonate on january 1st, it will cause a double-dip recession. we still have 15 million americans unemployed. the idea of having a huge tax increase whether you're keynesian economist or conservative supply side economist like myself there is no economic theology that says a tax increase that big is good for the economy. another thing for your viewers to think about, bill, if the capital gains and dividend and business taxes go up on january 1st, by the way the dividend tax for example, would tripl

but we are looking at the amt debate, higher income was defined as a taxpayer with incomes above $250,000. i just think this is unfair. it distorts the medicare system. it will be a great burden. on a lot of seniors. they already pay more for their medicare part b premiums. and they already pay more into the system over their working years in a medicare tax that is based on their income. >> thank you. ms. elmers. >> thank you. congressman waxman, you know we keep hearing about emergency, a emergency. what does that translate into for the american people? if this is an emergency, then the government should not have to pay for it and we should not have to pay for. unless, of course, you want to tax the hard-working small- business owners who are our job providers in this country. that is what i am hearing. >> i think you are incorrect in what you are hearing. >> i am not yielding my time. now, if this were an emergency, we would have passed this at the and he of the year, 2011. emergency, this would have been taken care of. that is why what you say is completely and totally incorrect. this

it has the permanent extension of the empty -- amt and sgr. permanent extension makes more sense than patching these year after year. it has the enforcement of the bca caps and the joint committee sequester. we're accounting for future disaster costs rather than ignoring them. this baseline results in an annual deficit of 4.7% of gdp at the end of the budget window in 2002. last april, the president offered a blueprint for achieving more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. he maintained that commitment in his proposal to the joint committee on deficit reduction last september. this budget is very similar to his proposal in september. with the addition of a year to the budget window, as you can see on the far right in green, the budget includes over $5 trillion of total deficit reduction. let me walk you through the critical elements. i will work from left to right. you start on the far left, you will see $676 billion in savings from the appropriation bills enacted last year. these include the 2011 omnibus which was passed in april and the 2

>> when siti says amt is the target, the stock is red hot.t the stock market -- the stockings are getting ahead of the analysts because anmt isa remarkable company. >> we've had a lot of weakness in the food group. this man has delivered, great yield, great earnings, this stock is terrific. it's pickles! >> i assume energy prices will lead every interview you do for the next few months. >> mr. wenn eor has been able t figure out how to raise prices. that's a pepsi problem and general mills problems. higher gas means worse earnings. they have to get the euro up to combat that. >> see you tonight, guys. >> meantime, don't go anywhere. another big hour of "squawk on the street" straight ahead. ♪ big time, i've got to make it show, yeah ♪ [ male announcer ] how do you trade? with scottrader streaming quotes, any way you want. fully customize it for your trading process -- from thought to trade, on every screen. and all in real time. which makes it just like having your own trading floor, right at your fingertips. [ rodger ] at scottrade, seven do

you mentioned the amt tax. i am fortunate enough to be paying it to compensate for the millionaires and billionaires who should be paying it but do not. the reason i was capable of being as financially successful as i am is that i drop in an environment, a culture, where morals and critical thought were present. where work that comes from the bone of your back or the strength of your brain was appreciated and respected. it no longer is. when i started in the work force, i was hearing voices from the president -- who was running for the present at the time, that greece was good. there is no such thing as fraud and the market would correct itself. where is our moral compass? where is the ability for critical thought? this is not the time to practice austerity. there is a huge difference between spending money and investing money. guest: i think you said it better than i did. the point of the matter is that we are in tough times. you should be rewarded. we have increased productivity in the united states of americ

and i can see -- the amt i can see. the state tax, to me, is a revenue generator and that's one of those places when you take that off the table. now certain people have a view about fairness and what that represents. >> the opposite of your fairness where -- >> people say i've been taxed once. >> i'm going to be taxed again, exactly. >> i don't know if i would stick the estate tax in there just to have such a lightning bolt. it makes people so angry on both sides. you could make some real changes on the tax structure and leave that off the table. >> leave it off the table in terms of -- >> just don't change it right now. if you can make some serious things that get changed without putting in some of the third rails, if you want to say -- >> you may think i'm crazy. i live in a building in new york city, a co-op, and we just had to vote on whether we want to flip tax the building. it is like an estate tax. every time -- and every time the apartment gets sold 1% or 2% of the proceeds has to go to the building. it's like

a bass line that has sgr and amt ---- you do not pay for it -- >> you do not pay for the sgr. >> does your plan spend more money than the agreement and the current lot we've reached just last august? >> what we have to focus on here is the bottom line. we're taking deficits down to 2.8% of gdp. >> you're not answering my question. you -- does your budget calls for spending more money >> our budget is a more honest budget that looks at what is happening. each year -- >> will the witness not answer a simple question? >> it to more accurate reflection. >> will it spend more or less? >> it will actually spend less money because of the deficit reduction will have and a bass line reflects the current policy. >> because the deficit reduction that can only be assumed that is caused by increased taxes. let's go back to the question. your budget proposes eliminating the sequester, the 1.2 trillion dollars in spending cuts we agreed to last year of a difficult as it was -- that is a $1.2 trillion increase in spending is it not? >> it is not. >> why is it not? you eliminate that and that means yo

repealing amt. is there expectation, tom, that this would actually become law?ot ban clear sailing dynamic by any stretch over the past few administrations. >> you know, carl, what needs to get done here is to have somebody who can lead. we've had a president who for the last three years has given us wonderful campaign rhetoric but no accomplishments. once again, he's got a tax plan but that's not a tax plan. it's a campaign platform. mitt romney in every place he's been whether the olympics, as governor of massachusetts, has been able to get things done. in the case of massachusetts, here as legislature that was more than 80% democratic yet he was still able to pass meaningful reforms to take what was a $2 billion, $3 billion deficit and turn it into a $2 billion surplus. that's the kind of person we need to lead this country. >> why have you embraced his candidacy as aggressively as you have? maybe you can also comment on the degree to which he's earned this reputation deservedly or not as some sort of corporate raider or someone who invests in companies for p

we're looking at the amt debate, higher income was defined as a taxpayer with income above $250,000. i just think this is unfair, distorts the medicare system, and will be a great burden on a lot of seniors. they already pay more for their medicare part b premiums. they already pay more into the system over their working years in a medicare tax that is based on their income. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congressman waxman, we keep hearing about emergency, emergency, emergency. what does that translate into? if this is an emergency, then the government should not have to pay for it and we should not have to find money for it, unless you want to tax the hard- working, small business owners who are our job providers in this country. that is what i am hearing. >> i think you're incorrect in what you're hearing. >> i am not yielding my time. if this were an emergency, we would have passed this at the end of the year 2011. emergency? this would have been taken care of. that is why what you're saying is completely and totally incorrect. this is not an emergency. the american pe

counted in the bush budget -- in other words, the bush budget assumes that we were not going to fix the amthey assumed that they assumed we would never take care of the dot fix. if you use the bush methodology you get the following. the top line is the president's budget using eastridge for accounting techniques, percentage of gdp and the blue line is what president obama is budget could claim if you use the bush administration accounting gimmicks, so the secretary has acknowledged that we have gotten a lot of work to do as we did with the demographic changes 10 years and beyond. >> that tells you that the enemy is the omb. >> in this case, the omb actually did the way i think we would want them to do in terms of documenting the likely outcome. now, i just got to end with this because i do have -- >> [unintelligible] >> i have to lead to design something with another group but fundamentally, we have got to figure out a way to come together to resolve these issues. there are some basic disagreements. we believe it is important in the short term to continue to take measures that are described

it has the permanent extension of the amt and the sdr -- sgr.nent extension makes more sense than patching these year after year. it has the enforcement of gdp capps, an accounting for future disaster costs rather to in ignoring them. this accounts for four 0.7% of gdp at the end of the budget window in 2002. last april, the president offered a blueprint for achieving more than $4 trillion deficit reduction. he maintained that the men and in his proposal last september. this budget is very similar -- that commitment in his proposal last september. this budget is very similar to the september proposal. the budget actually includes over $5 trillion of total deficit reduction. let me walk you through the critical elements. i'm going to work from left to right. if you start on the far left, you will see 6 android $76 billion in savings from the appropriation bills enacted last year. -- $676 billion in savings from the appropriation bills enacted last year. moving right, over $1 trillion in reductions in discretionary spending, consistent with the di

. - amt. the corporate tax, lower rates.r rates and consolidated to one rate, 28% top rate, a 20% reduction down to 28% which was ronald reagan posset top rates. it is good enough for ronald reagan, it is good enough for me. host: that is rick santorum last week speaking to the detroit economic club and he is speaking this evening in a major announcement. he will unveil his first 100- days economic agenda and we will have live coverage of his comments from lincoln park, mich. at 8:00 eastern here on c- span. we continue the conversation asking you about the corporate tax rate. are they too high, too low, or just about right? let's go to florida on our democratic line. caller: i think they are too low. first of all, they don't pay the going rate anyhow. the going rate is supposed to be 24% but if you look at what they actually pay, the marginal rate is a pox -- approximately 2%-3% and corporations don't pay anything. it is time we really listen to what mr. runyan says when he talked about cutting taxes 20%. if he does that, o