first we want to welcome the cbo director to report on the latest cbo estimates.before we begin that, i want to publicly thank the director for the really extraordinary effort he and the people at cbo have made over the last year with an unprecedented workload. i know firsthand that he and his people have worked nights, weekends, repeatedly, under extraordinary time pressures and with real complexity. i must say, even though there have been times i disagreed with his views, sometimes strenuously, i absolutely respect his independence and his integrity. i think he is -- he has won the respect of people on both sides of the aisle who have seen that he has tried to call them straight. that is the best that we can ask for, and it really is high professionalism from director elmendorf and the people at cto. we have had our disagreements on things that matter a lot to me, but what is important is that we do have an independent scorekeeper that has integrity. certainly he has proved that. let me just turn briefly to my remarks about the subject at hand. the jobs situatio

cbo's budget and economic outlook paints a cbo's budget and economic outlook spins a picture of boththe year we left behind in the year we face in the time over the next decade. in 2009 congress delivered a $1.4 trillion deficit, the largest and nation's history and no doubt because of the recession made much worse. estimates for the current year also are staggering, $1.35 trillion deficit and our debt will reach over 60 percent have gdp this year. and of the current policies of our government by 2020, cbo projects our debt will soar to 100 percent of gross domestic product and adding to that yearly interest paid to finance the surge in spending will more than tripled nominal terms from to under $7 billion in 2010 to $723 billion in 2020. more troubling than another or $1 trillion deficit is there is more to,. cbo figures don't include likely to come down the pipeline for were funding to the new health care entitlement to all the at the things that will happen and so on and so forth. i'm encouraged by the news that the administration is considering a three-year freeze on certain disc

and, ultimately, cbo, concluded this answer to those question, was...well, the federal government and each one of those. and since then, the treasury continued to purchase preferred shares in the gses, the means to provide them with enough capital to cover their losses. initially, congress put up $200 billion, as one -- 100 billion for each entity and last year the treasury raised the potential commitment to 400 billion and of course, on christmas eve lifted the cap altogether and now it is basically, unlimited. in the latest report, fannie mae said we expect for the foreseeable future the earnings of the company, if any will not be efficient to pay the dividends on the senior preferred stock. as a result, future dividend payments actually will be effectively refunded from the equity drawn from the treasury. which means -- seems to me is the treasury pours money in and they take the treasuries and send their own money back to us again as dividends. director, your counterparts, however at the office of management and budget, omb and treasury, somehow dis

and, ultimately, cbo, concluded this answer to those question, was...ell, the federal government and each one of those. and since then, the treasury continued to purchase preferred shares in the gses, the means to provide them with enough capital to cover their losses. initially, congress put up $200 billion, as one -- 100 billion for each entity and last year the treasury raised the potential commitment to 400 billion and of course, on christmas eve lifted the cap altogether and now it is basically, unlimited. in the latest report, fannie mae said we expect for the foreseeable future the earnings of the company, if any will not be efficient to pay the dividends on the senior preferred stock. as a result, future dividend payments actually will be effectively refunded from the equity drawn from the treasury. which means -- seems to me is the treasury pours money in and they take the treasuries and send their own money back to us again as dividends. director, your counterparts, however at the office of management and budget, omb and treasury, somehow disa

and, ultimately, cbo, concluded this answer to those question, was...nued to purchase preferred shares in the gses, the means to provide them with enough capital to cover their losses. initially, congress put up $200 billion, as one -- 100 billion for each entity and last year the treasury raised the potential commitment to 400 billion and of course, on christmas eve lifted the cap altogether and now it is basically, unlimited. in the latest report, fannie mae said we expect for the foreseeable future the earnings of the company, if any will not be efficient to pay the dividends on the senior preferred stock. as a result, future dividend payments actually will be effectively refunded from the equity drawn from the treasury. which means -- seems to me is the treasury pours money in and they take the treasuries and send their own money back to us again as dividends. director, your counterparts, however at the office of management and budget, omb and treasury, somehow disagree with you. and, your conclusions about fannie and feel the cost to the taxpayers

do you have any plans to use dynamic scoring at cbo? >> we do not intend to incorporate the policies of the macroeconomic conditions it is also done on the staff of the joint tax committee the particular branch aides to be directed to them we do not stand to incorporate those effects but to provide analysis for other members of the macroeconomic effects for the president's budget and have for seven years but don't incorporate those are in 102 on the estimates with this legislation. >> your answer is no? >> that's right. >> do think extending the bush tax cuts will have positive and negative the effect on the economy? >> >> extending the tax cuts would have a positive effect in the year or two on the beginning because they would encourage spending and job creation over a longer period of time the tax cuts are extended permanently to revenues a larger debt that would arise would lower the level if it was extended not and a permanent basis but a temporary basis of to three years that would help the economy. >> in the first few years that a

for many years the cbo had none of 5%. a few years ago what was taken down to 4.75% i believe, and -- 4.8% -- and we put it back at 5% and that is publicly looking again at the evidence of a major movement and the effect of just described the affect from the dislocation we are seeing to read like the estimate of that is fairly standard estimate. i don't think it deviates this uncertainty in divergence but that is not a case we are in any way out of the mainstream of the forecasters. >> just to follow up on one detail, do you have a kind of mechanical protection of how much the deficit would increase or decrease its growth was -- >> i forgot to refer to that. there is appendix, the letter escapes me, perhaps drc, appendix c which offers rules of thumb he essentially house what the economic changes and also with the changes economic projections, appendix c how changes in economic projections can affect the budget projections and we offer four different alternatives, changes in gdp, inflation, changes in interest rates and ch

and that the cbo should do.o amplify something senator ringside. i have had people suggesting me that in a commission that we consider our long-term debt would make adjustments to shows those acuity and medicare. i think we have to let people in the eye and say yes, there is really no alternative. medicare is cash negative today. the trustees tell us it will be insolvent in eight years. social security is cash negative today. in your report the day before yesterday says that it will be cash negative every year except two for the future. you say in your report, it will go cash negative on a permanent basis in 2016. so anybody that says you don't have to make any changes to those programs, programs i strongly support, i know i lost my parents when i was young. i got social security that helped me go to college. so i understand its importance in people's lives. i understand the importance of medicare in people's lives. i submitted my own family. at the suggestion we don't have to do anything is just not being strai

the number in the cbo report update released yesterday were

that's ugly, how do cbo improvement on this front, how do we get there?lly, we intend to the highly act and other bills out there similar, to increase job creation in the short-term, what kind of impact would that have on a projection number that you have over the long-term? >> congressman, i'm not examining your particular bill but in general, we did analyze alternative ways of spurring economic growth and job creation. and we think that one of the more effective ways for policies that are targeted at basically give money to firms in response to increases in the payroll. >> and that's what this one does. >> that works in two ways really. part of that is just that putting money into the spending stream, giving more money to workers or to firms will incur a certain amount of excess spending. there is an incentive effect. if the program is structured right, and there are a lot of complexities as you know with a, it can create an incentive effect addition. at a policy like that were implemented, we would incorporate -- were tried as make the aspects of it. a

by 2019, the cbo numbers, the cbo numbers omnia assumption of no real discretionary spending are thatwe will be spending 23.6% of gdp with a more realistic assumption that government spending will rise to discretionary spending will rise with nominal gdp. we get to more than 25%. and to put that number in perspective, over the four decades through 2009 that number was only a little over 20%. so with a five percentage point increase. and the danger in my judgment is that this will provide an excuse or provide political pressure to consider the value added tax and while value added tax is that many virtues as an alternative to other taxes, i don't think they have a virtue as simply an addition to personal income taxes, payroll pack the and corporate income taxes because they would increase marginal tax rate and encourage even more spending. so let me turn finally to the subject of the health insurance program. president obama has basically focused his energies on that program for expanding health insurance to low and moderate income households. the 30 million people who would benefit we

and i don't know what the cost is that cbo has put on the. and that, i'm not sure that there is a cost that has been put on that by cbo. >> sarah, you have some cards. >> how will the senate approach the 50 state exchanges work and attend smaller states with under 1 million population? >> if i can magnify that, t i don't think we haven't time to put into your packets. joe and his colleagues, which asserts that you need at least 100,000 lives in exchange to make a viable. i think a further problem is that, since any senate bill the exchange is not exclusive in the nongroup mar m of the senate is a considerable number of people will stay outside the exchange and eight nongroup market, i think that you're going to be dealing with some very small exchanges that i think that going to have a problem with providing insurers with a viable risk pools, and also attracting enough in shuras that they can be viable. in a small state that now the senate bill contemplates the possibility of regional exchanges. of course, the state could always forgo the exc

i did not know that about the cbo. lag in their model relationships. most private forecasters are putting the maximum economic income in the second half of 2009. and still provide some benefit in the first half but in most models i have seen, it is-. >> it may be a difference in definition. >> moving from the past to the future, there is ako billçko fe #g0 billion in the house passed one that is $174 billion. only half of the house bill is for the types ofç?7ñ3ç thingje broadly construed that could fit into the accessible category. a lot of it is infrastructure spending. to be on the agenda now. it just takes too long. i am not too enthusiastic about employment tax credits for increasing employment. i think they are extremely difficult to design in a way that you cannot just provide a windfall for people that have been hired anyway. that is true even if you have threshold's like to% and so forth. we have all of these spaces in the r&d tax credit that to not work well ago and there's really -- they are similarly str

by 2019, the cbo numbers, the cbo numbers omnia assumption of no real discretionary spending are thatwe will be spending 23.6% of gdp with a more realistic assumption that government spending will rise to discretionary spending will rise with nominal gdp. we get to more than 25%. and to put that number in perspective, over the four decades through 2009 that number was only a little over 20%. so with a five percentage point increase. and the danger in my judgment is that this will provide an excuse or provide political pressure to consider the value added tax and while value added tax is that many virtues as an alternative to other taxes, i don't think they have a virtue as simply an addition to personal income taxes, payroll pack the and corporate income taxes because they would increase marginal tax rate and encourage even more spending. so let me turn finally to the subject of the health insurance program. president obama has basically focused his energies on that program for expanding health insurance to low and moderate income households. the 30 million people who would benefit we

the number in the cbo report update released yesterday were daunting to say the least. but to fully comprehend the implications of those numbers, the bottom line to the budget is important to remain -- remember the context from which the merger. the year-ago the economy was in a freefall. job loss was at 10,714,000 per month january alone. americans were determined savings accounts that plunged by 2 million by the first quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009. the record budget surplus of january, 2001 has been converted to record deficits for jobs as far as the eye could see. if president obama and this compass began to those in mind this was the context, this was the economic and fiscal legacy of the previous administration. to many americans today still feel the pain of the recession. we received news today from the testimony from dr. elmendorf that the economy we believe was out of recession never the less is much work to be done to reveal the economy and to recover full capacity. the cbo report today confirmed the actions we've taken the last year have pulled eco

i do not know what cost the cbo has put on that. i am not sure there has been. >> how will the senate approach the 50 state exchanges work with the smaller states under a million population and? >> if i can magnify that, there is a new paper that i don't think we had time to put into your packets which asserts you need at least 100,000 lives in exchange to make it viable. >> a further problem that the exchange is not exclusive and says the presumption is that a considerable number of people will say -- stay outside of the exchange's think he would deal with some very small exchanges that i think will have a problem of providing ensures with the risk pools and attracting enough that they can be viable in the small states. it contemplates regional exchanges but of course, the state could forgo and that said government were contractor run its but i think part of the problem is with the size of the viable risk pool. >> a pkk's business approach you have three sets of cost cost, the business functions setter variable to sell insurance, t

i don't know what the cost is that cbo put on that. i am not sure there is a cost put on that by cbo. >> we have some cards -- >> how will the senate approach the 50 state exchanges work and the 10 small states under the -- under a 1 million population? >> if i can magnify that, there is a new paper i don't think we had in time to put into your packets of that economic development. it asserts that you need at least 100,000 lives in an exchange to make it viable. >> a further problem is that since under the senate bill the exchange is not exclusive, and since the presumption is that a considerable number of people will stay outside the exchange, i think you will be dealing with some very small exchanges that will have a problem with providing insurers with viable risk pools. the senate bill contemplates the possibility of regional exchanges. a state could always forgo the exchange and let the government run it, but i think that is part of the problem i was pointing to with respect to the size of a viable risk pools. >> if you take a bus

host: you can watch the cbo event at 11:00 a.m. on c-span3. they released their 2010 budget outlook. we will hear lots of reaction. we will try to bring much of it to you. the first call comes from hill city, s.d., on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. ben bernanke has always been an appointee of the bush administration, and i have always felt it was a very bad idea for president obama to try to get his agenda going on with some many people from the bush administration. i contacted the president and wrote him a-mails. it is a mistake to leave especially ben bernanke in the position because he is a greenspan caller. greenspan is basically the guy who got us into this mess. -- he is a greenspan follower. he sent jobs overseas, etc. greenspan is a mess. guest: you are voicing a lot of the same concerns of democrats and the senate share. that is why there will be lots of no votes against ben bernanke. the white house might be wondering if they should have chosen someone else. we're still in the middle of getting out of the mess we are in.

i don't know what the cost is that cbo put on that. i am not sure there is a cost put on that by cbo. >> we have some cards -- >> how will the senate approach the 50 state exchanges work and the 10 small states under the -- under a 1 million population? >> if i can magnify that, there is a new paper i don't think we had in time to put into your packets of that economic development. it asserts that you need at least 100,000 lives in an exchange to make it viable. >> a further problem is that since under the senate bill the exchange is not exclusive, and since the presumption is that a considerable number of people will stay outside the exchange, i think you will be dealing with some very small exchanges that will have a problem with providing insurers with viable risk pools. the senate bill contemplates the possibility of regional exchanges. a state could always forgo the exchange and let the government run it, but i think that is part of the problem i was pointing to with respect to the size of a viable risk pools. >> if you take a bus

the recurring issue if congress should rely on budget estimates from the cbo or office of management and budget. cbo usually use is conservative budget assumptions and therefore tends to prove a ruby year public outlook so they tend to like the cbo numbers while republicans opposed it and during clinton's presidency the choice of the two estimates was essential in the impact that led to the government shutdown 1995 and 96 with the use of the cbo numbers. but given how important budget issues are to take control of the national parliament or regain control part -- . the isi party has a reason to come to the table to negotiate. the only way is during divided government reflecting back over recent decades it appears most significant budget agreement that of the word federal deficits were adopted. this includes the 1980 budget accord as well as a agreements during the current clinton years that led to surpluses. 1983 social security reform that simultaneously lowered long term cost of the program also occurred under positions. i thought the compromise was the only way the american govern

and i don't know what the cost is that cbo has put on that. in fact, i'm not sure there is a cost that's put on that by the cbo. >> okay. >> so you have some cards. >> another question, how will you senate approach the 50-state exchanges work and the 10 smallest state with under 1 million population? >> if i can magnify that, there's a new paper that i don't think we had in time to put into your packets from the economic development. joe and his colleagues, which asserts that you need at least 100,000 lives in an exchange to make it viable. >> yup. >> the -- i think the further problem is that since under the senate, the change is not exclusive and since the presumption of the senate that a certain number of people will stay outside the change in the nongroup market, i think you're going to be dealing with some very small exchanges that i think are going to have a problem with provider insurers with viable risk poops and enough to be viable in small states. now the senate contemplates the possibly of regional. of course, the state could always

i think it's important to remember the cbo deficit for 2009 that was made in january 2009 before obama took office was $1.2 trillion for fiscal year 2009, and at the end it was 1.4 trillion, and 100 billion of that was due to slower economic growth than the cbo anticipated, leading to lower revenues. so there was exactly $100 billion of spending that was not projected in january, and i think it's worth keeping that in mind because it shows really that the administration has done very, very little in terms of stimulus for the economy, and a great deal of the deficit problem that the republicans complain about is because of their policies which obama inherited. >> host: san francisco, good morning, susan, democratic caller. >> caller: i have sort of a specific question. i can't figure out when i try and think about where the mortgages -- who lent what money to who -- and that is that on the one hand i have heard people say that one of the things that pushed people to make these -- all these loans is that there was such a market for asset-based investments. so, these mortgages were turned

this bill, as cbo has found, will reduce the deficit and over a period of time. we are interested in fiscal stability in the out years we need to get the skyrocketing health-care costs under control. host: if the american public does not believe -- is there a message problem? host: of the debate on health care has clearly dominated. it is a complicated issue. it is important to get it right. but the fact we have been moving forward on jobs initiatives during that period of time i think has been partly lost by the media coverage of health care, the twists and turns of that debate. i think it will be very important going forward. as we continue to focus on jobs and pass additional jobs measures, let people know we are focus like a laser beam on these issues. again, the economic recovery bill has succeeded in getting us out of a free-fall. the economy was declining at a rate of 6.5% this time last year. now the economy is showing positive growth. it jobs were just going through the floor. now, what we have not only recovered and have not gotten positive jobs growth,

i did not know that about the cbo. explanation is to have more of a lag in their model relationships. most private forecasters are putting the maximum economic income in the second half of 2009. and still provide some benefit in the first half but in most models i have seen, it is-. >> it may be a difference in definition. >> moving from the past to the future, there is ako billçko fe #g0 billion in the house passed one that is $174 billion. only half of the house bill is for the types ofç?7ñ3ç thingje broadly construed that could fit into the accessible category. a lot of it is infrastructure spending. to be on the agenda now. it just takes too long. i am not too enthusiastic about employment tax credits for increasing employment. i think they are extremely difficult to design in a way that you cannot just provide a windfall for people that have been hired anyway. that is true even if you have threshold's like to% and so forth. we have all of these spaces in the r&d tax credit that to not work well ago and there's

health care costs is to reform, something that i have said i am willing to work with you want, but the cbor experts say to me, at best, this could reduce health-care costs relative to where they are growing by a couple of percentage points, or save $5 billion a year, that is what wer bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly, then you cannot make the claim that that is the only thing that we have to do. if we are going to do multistate insurance so that people can goÑi across state lines, i have got to be able to go to an independent health-care experts, republican or democrat, who can tell me that this will not result in cherry picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off. so i am absolutely committed toó working with you on these issues, but it cannot just be political assertions that are not substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy. ÑixdÑiñrÑibecause otherwise, weg to be selling the american people a bill of goods. i mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that

were they cbo's?rts of aig, including other things -- but to a point, i think the main part of it, cbo-like things. >> you are holding these? >> again, i do not want to get too far over my skis. >> but you answer these in writing afterwards? >> yes, but i believe that we had -- protection to another counterparty, and a squad that protection from aig, so, in effect, we had no kind of equity risk, but we did have a credit risk to aig -- protection to another counterparty, and we had protection from aig. >> since goldman was regulated by the sec, which, again, i think was about 2004, your leverage increases substantially, from 2004 until about 2008. why would deleveraged increase after you became regulated by the sec? -- why would your leverage increase? >> the way we did deleveraged, the way we looked at it, under our regulatory regime -- the way we did leverage, it did not rate every asset the same way, so, for example, with a balance sheet, much of that is cash, what is on our balance sheet, so we ass

i have not read the cbo study.i know enough to know that health care economists have differed quite a bit about implications of different proposals and different measures. so i'm not going to weigh in with a number. i don't have a good number to give you. only to repeat what i've said before, which is as part of this process, it's very, very important that we do our best, not to reduce the quality of care or reduce coverage or to make health care worse here this is a very inefficient system and there must be ways to reduce the cost of delivering that health care, and there have been many ideas suggested, ranging from information technology, to various incentive payments, to experimental or evidence-based medicine. i just want to reiterate that because it is critical that we get a stable and sustainable fiscal trajectory going forward, we do need to address this issue. and i don't think we can get a sustainable fiscal situation without addressing the issue. but again, in terms of the specifics, you know, there's a l

were they cbo's?of assets, and somebody doing business with aig, other parts of aig, including other things -- but to a point, i think the main part of it, cbo-like things. >> you are holding these? >> again, i do not want to get too far over my skis. >> but you answer these in writing afterwards? >> yes, but i believe that we had -- protection to another counterparty, and a squad that protection from aig, so, in effect, we had no kind of equity risk, but we did have a credit risk to aig -- protection to another counterparty, and we had protection from aig. >> since goldman was regulated by the sec, which, again, i think was about 2004, your leverage increases substantially, from 2004 until about 2008. why would deleveraged increase after you became regulated by the sec? -- why would your leverage increase? >> the way we did deleveraged, the way we looked at it, under our regulatory regime -- the way we did leverage, it did not rate every asset the same way, so, for example, with a balance sheet, much

we have looked at the cbo estimates. they're reasonable. >> it's bonus season again on wall street. banks are poised to pay record bonus this is year. do you see any sign that the big banks will demonstrate the constraint that the president has called for? >> i sure hope so. >> but you're shaking your head no. >> we have had to provide so much support for the financial system. it was the right thing to do. when credit stops, the economy stops. we've provided extraordinary aid. the idea that as the financial system heals they go back to business as usual is simply outrageous. >> what will the president do? >> we'll redouble our efforts on regulatory reform. sensible things liking, compensation should be focused on long-term so you don't have rewards for short-term risk taking. we have to put rules of the road in place. so the system doesn't bring the economy to the edge of collapse like it did a year or so good. >> thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >>> president obama is not the first president to start the second year with a tough position on the jobs front. >> reporter: he

what you're seeing is a reflection of the snapshot in time that cbo took. that's kind of a we have to work with now but i wanted to make sure people are clear on that. it is at 50, 75. there will be a range in the range will be according to what the functional limitation is, and how that model is constructed. so it's scaled to the steps. the next policy objective that we had was about providing services. that was always a really big piece. one of the big fights we had in the developing of this bill was family caregivers, and could a person reversed their family member for the services that they would provide. that caused a huge upward i will tell you for those of you committed to family caregivers, huge, huge. we had discussions with unions about how to do with that and we had discussions with members. and i can tell you, i can tell you, there are people who just don't understand. they are not negative and they are not dumb. they just don't understand. i had one senator before the senate bill say to me why do you want to give money to your mom? she is there

and leads by many economists in the cbo estimates to excessive health insurance coverage and rising health care costs. what this bill would do is slightly scale back that existing tax bias, by taxing the most expensive plans on the amount they spend above a certain threshold. and basically scaling back the give-away we now have to the most expensive health insurance plans. >> ifill: let me just let josh bivens in here now because he says it's a give-away to the existing health insurance plans. what do you say? >> i don't know if i'd call it a give-away. i do think it's not a great idea. one problem is it's often... it's called a cadillac tax. the idea is they were taxing outlandish plans that provide generous coverage. it's not very well targeted at all. i would be in favor of a well targeted way to do this but this is a very poorly targeted policy proposal. >> ifill: the people who benefit from it are just middle class folks? >> i would say there are reasons why health insurance plans are expensive and generosity is not necessarily one of them. we have a very dysfunctional health insuranc

another 200 billion-dollar increase, $100 billion of that was due to slower economic growth than the cbo had anticipated, leading to lower revenues. so there was exactly $100 billion of additional spending that was not projected in january. and i think it's worth keeping that in mind because it shows really that the administration has done very little in terms of stimulus for the economy and a great deal of the deficit problem that the republicans complain about is because of their policies, which obama inherited. >> host: post go here or san francisco. good morning, susan. democratic color. >> caller: i have sort of a specific question that i can't figure out when i try and think about where the mortgages, who learned what many do. and that is on the one hand i've heard people say one of the things that pushed people to make these all these loans is that it was such a market for asset taste investments. so these mortgages were turned around and then people bought them as investments, i guess presumably because they pay interest back and they make a profit. and wall street, you know, was

congress says it will do whether lawmakers will actually do it the so when the democratic told the cbo that they cut 5 hidden billion from medicare. that would reduce the deficit by more than $130 billion. >> there are a number of things that make that highly implausible. >> such as covering the uninsured by sending medicaid, shifting costs to cash strapped states. or double counting savings in medicare, also spending the money elsewhere. >> you can't spend the same dollar twice. >> then there is something called the doctor fix in medicare, a move to undo what they did in medicare spending. under current law, doctors that treat the elder would face a 21% cut. so they simply removed it from the reform bill. >> biggest hole in the financing is the fact that they have left out. >> reducing the deficit to making it worse because the doc fix would cost some $210 billion. congress has to fix it anyway, so the house passed it but added to the deficit. >> how will that be financed or will it be financed? that is an open question. >> reporter: cuts to doctors and early attempt to cutting medica

cbo's, credit-default swaps, you name it, securities are rated aaa the would be worth it. then we all stood around scratching our heads wondering how did this happen? on deily double unprecedented greed while a lot of people at the top made massive amounts of money and by the way the guy that ran countrywide got away with about $200 million now under investigation. but a whole lot of them got away with a whole lot of money. and in this country and the american people got stuck with a bill of about $15 trillion in an economy that has been limping ever since. and so, one asks the question is it really said bashing? is it really and i business? fed negative in to say the fed allows people information to of the $2 trillion what were the terms? is it antibusiness for those of us trying to patch together rules and regio this can't happen again. we won't allow it to happen again. i just want to close with one additional quote and this is from almost ten and a half years ago on the floor of the united states samet when we passed legislation at the request of all of those big finan

the cbo says, to an effect, it does. host: next phone call. caller: senator mary landrieu approved this book she also conferred with gov. bobby jindal who used to be involved in health and human services in the bush administration, so he is familiar with him -- the health debate going on. is this something the governor makes? would it be put to the state to vote on, if they wanted to opt- in? host: david lightman? guest: opt out was a part of the plan that harry reid introduced. what we have now is a plan where the government would supervise a multi-state plan, one of which would have to be nonprofit. this would provide competition with private insurers. host: next is ron from syracuse. independent line. caller: i am not really interested in health insurance reform, regulation. i do not think we need health insurance, we need health care. the gentleman who called in and while ago said he could not understand why a our costs are twice what other countries are. the answer is we treat health care as a commodity, rather than a right, as everyone e

the cbo says, to an effect, it does. host: next phone call. caller: senator mary landrieu approved this book she also conferred with gov. bobby jindal who used to be involved in health and human services in the bush administration, so he is familiar with him -- the health debate going on. is this something the governor makes? would it be put to the state to vote on, if they wanted to opt- in? host: david lightman? guest: opt out was a part of the plan that harry reid introduced. what we have now is a plan where the government would supervise a multi-state plan, one of which would have to be nonprofit. this would provide competition with private insurers. host: next is ron from syracuse. independent line. caller: i am not really interested in health insurance reform, regulation. i do not think we need health insurance, we need health care. the gentleman who called in and while ago said he could not understand why a our costs are twice what other countries are. the answer is we treat health care as a commodity, rather than a right, as everyone e

capital budget to do the things we can do with a capital budget, you have to change the way that the cbos score. they can score the total investment. they just got used or the debt service like we do in pennsylvania. we score, what we pay for in that year. a federal capital budget even at the federal capital budget of up and the total picture, but just fund the infrastructure bank it could work. the time in my judgment the time calls for bold and strong actions. if we do this, the obama administration and this congress will be remembered the same way president eisenhower and the congress he worked with is remembered for building the national highway system. thank you very much. i didn't want you to speed up at the end, but you got me so excited about height need that -- [laughter] thank you very much. and now for mr. szabo, we'd like to hear from you. >> thank you i'm a chairman lautenberg imus senator thune, senator hutchison and senator said the committee. it's certainly an honor to appear here today on the off of president obama, vice president biden and ray the hood. the vice preside

the only reason they even get some of the cbo numbers is because they rob medicare of a half trillion dollars. people aren't buying it. i hope somehow ben nelson and some of the people in the senate, when this goes back to the senate, i hope it does, will find their conscience again and reject this while there is still time. >> congressman, i'll let you get the final word. you got 20 seconds. >> absolutely. the great things we have is that seniors, or even family members, young men and women no longer have to do co-pays when they go in for health insurance. so they come for preventative care, preventive screenings. >> we are going to lose the satellite. we just lost it, unfortunately. we had a limited window there. we were having technical difficulties. i want to give thanks to both congressmen for joining us on a fair and balanced debate here. thank you. >> president obama directly blaming the christmas bomb scare on al-qaeda for the first time today. now he's promising to step up the effort against members of the terrorist network based out of yemen, the most effective way for the u

but the cbo and other experts say to me that at best, this could reduce health care costs relative to where they're growing by couple of percentage points or save $5 billion per year. that is what we can score and out. it will not bend the cost in the long term or reduce premiums significantly. then you cannot make the claim that is the only thing we have to do. if we're going to do multi- state insurance so that people can go across state lines, i have got to be able to go to an independent health care expert, republican or democrat, who can tell me that this will not result in cherry picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off. i am absolutely committed to working with you on these issues, but it cannot just be political assertions that are not substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy. otherwise, we will be selling the american people build goods. -- otherwise we will be selling the american people a bill of goods. the easiest thing to do on health care debate would be to tell people that what you are going to get is guaranteed in

were they cbo's?they were a lot of assets, and somebody doing business with aig, other parts of aig, including other things -- but to a point, i think the main part of it, cbo-like things. >> you are holding these? >> again, i do not want to get too far over my skis. >> but you answer these in writing afterwards? >> yes, but i believe that we had -- protection to another counterparty, and a squad that protection from aig, so, in effect, we had no kind of equity risk, but we did have a credit risk to aig -- protection to another counterparty, and we had protection from aig. >> since goldman was regulated by the sec, which, again, i think was about 2004, your leverage increases substantially, from 2004 until about 2008. why would deleveraged increase after you became regulated by the sec? -- why would your leverage increase? >> the way we did deleveraged, the way we looked at it, under our regulatory regime -- the way we did leverage, it did not rate every asset the same way, so, for example, with a bal

i mean, as long as i've been covering congress, you've sort of come when cbo comes out and say we've to control these deficits. do feel a little bit like don quixote these days? >> you know, we've had some great successes. i look back to the 90's when we put in place the budget that not only balanced the budget, but stopped the borrowing from the social security trust fund. that was a remarkable accomplishment. and now we've got a circumstance in which we narrowly averted a global financial collapse. clearly that explodes deficits and debt in the short-term. that puts an even greater burden on us to pay that and deal with this long-term debt rat. we clearly are on an unsustainable long-term path and it's absolutely incumbent upon us to address that. that doesn't mean, to me, that does not mean you don't take further measures to provide the quiddity at a time real economic weakness. so the timing of all this becomes critically important. we look back to the lessons of the great depression. in 1937, they tried prematurely to rein in the deficit and unemployment exploded. we don't want

if you had evaluated some of the cbo's, which do not have been in a better position to know about them i cannot think of a bigger incentive than having that accumulating on your balance sheet. we had that incentive, and it did not work. >> some of you have talked about clawback provisions. and any of you utilize your clawback provisions? and i wonder whether each of you, since i do not have time to hear your answers, whether or not you applied the clock back to the people in your firms, without naming the particular people, but the clock back and what percentage of compensation that was, and if you can put that in writing, we would appreciate that. >> terrific. we are going to take literally a five-minute break. we will then get on with our business. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] çó >> did you feel like you were at court today? >> i think in many ways, you know, we often have other things to do that are really important, to be able to participate and give our views. i think we are very lucky to have a ch

health care costs is to reform, something that i have said i am willing to work with you want, but the cboosts relative to where they are growing by a couple of percentage points, or save $5 billion a year, that is what wer bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly, then you cannot make the claim that that is the only thing that we have to do. if we are going to do multistate insurance so that people can goÑi across state lines, i have got to be able to go to an independent health-care experts, republican or democrat, who can tell me that this will not result in cherry picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off. so i am absolutely committed toó working with you on these issues, but it cannot just be political assertions that are not substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy. ÑixdÑiñrÑibecause otherwise, weg to be selling the american people a bill of goods. i mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that what you are going to get is guaranteed health insurance,r lo

cbo says 138-132. it will not be government run. 6 million more people will be covered. regional differences, remember the difference between $16,000 in miami and $6,100 in marquette? the senate leaves the system the way it is. if it is a broken system, why do we keep it? house we change it. senate keeps it. the federal funds for abortion. the senate has basically the capps amendment repaving $1 per month in you can use federal subsidies to pay for it. option in a nutshell, those of the differences. i know it sounds like a long presentation. -- that is health care in a nutshell and those are the differences. this is the one that affects everyone of us now and in the future. i thought it was worthwhile to do this presentation and take the time to get this through. we have about an hour for questions and will start with questions. again, we have a large crowd. i will try to repeat your question so everyone can hear it. ask a question and we will move on. be respectful of everyone. yes, ma'am? the question is how can we use our influence to get them to include a public opti

cbo says 138-132. it will not be government run. 6 million more people will be covered. regional differences, remember the difference between $16,000 in miami and $6,100 in marquette? the senate leaves the system the way it is. if it is a broken system, why do we keep it? house we change it. senate keeps it. the federal funds for abortion. the senate has basically the capps amendment repaving $1 per month in you can use federal subsidies to pay for it. option in a nutshell, those of the differences. i know it sounds like a long presentation. -- that is health care in a nutshell and those are the differences. this is the one that affects everyone of us now and in the future. i thought it was worthwhile to do this presentation and take the time to get this through. we have about an hour for questions and will start with questions. again, we have a large crowd. i will try to repeat your question so everyone can hear it. ask a question and we will move on. be respectful of everyone. yes, ma'am? the question is how can we use our influence to get them to include a public opti

cbo said that it could save $54 billion over the next 10 years. i want the president to be true on his word and see if we cannot come up with a bill that will truly lower the cost of health care. but let us not let the federal government takeover. host: we begin in florida. daniel on the republican line. caller: all we hear of the health care is insurance. my neighbor had a heart attack and went to the hospital. no surgery. he was built $80,000. -- billed $80,000. how come we don't talk about that? guest: that is a good point. it is those people who do not have health insurance who gets stuck with these sticker prices, if you will. if you are under a negotiated rate, you would pay about a fourth of that. i think in would be a good idea to speak to the hospital and say, anyone who comes in paying for themself, and do not go to them. charge more to the groups. -- gouge them. host: next phone call. caller: i had two adults. one on the government plan. -- two thoughts. i think it is the democrats' attempt to eliminate private companies so that they ca

guest: when congress proposes a bill they are supposed to have their aides up there -- i forget, cbor omb, and look at the effect on businesses and whether there will be a red tape drag, etcetera. but the short answer is, this is an election year and there will be no deliberation. they are being driven by the polls. they want to convince the american public that they are capable of action. as you saw on but disastrous health care legislation, they tried to ram everything through -- the disastrous health care legislation. i think they will try to ram jobs bill through but this time they will have republicans pushing and shoving as hard as democrats, so as far as deliberations and obstacles, forget about. they just wanted money out the door. host: dayton, ohio. independent line. ron, good morning. caller: my thinking is if the company wants to hire an employee, the cost 25%, 35% more to hire them because of the taxes, travelling expenses, that they incur. in order for small businesses, a designation of 100 or fewer or 50 or fewer, to make new employees 1099 employees or employees pay t

he will discuss the book with the former federal vice chair and first director of the cbo. >> the new-span video library is a digital archive of programming from barack obama to run margaret regan. over 157,000 hours. -- from barack obama to ronald reagan. "washington journal" continues. host: the homeland security director contributed to this piece. obama says that u.s. fail to understand intelligence on terror plot. what did he say about going forward when it comes to combating terrorism? guest: yesterday he did not offer any specifics on what would change, but mainly that they continue to investigate in two primary areas. the second is once a person does to a checkpoint at the airport improving those security systems. investigations continue in those two areas. he said we're still waiting for final recommendations and cannot yet say exactly what we will do to change the system. host: explain what the watch list is? guest: the u.s. has at least four different lists it is checking with concerns about possible ties to terrorism. one of the questions before the administration is where