and the debt course we're on, that the chair -- the director of office of management and budget, mr. elmendorf -- directer of congressional budget office, excuse me, testified just a few weeks ago before our budget committee and he declared that we remain on an unsustainable financial course even after th the -- the budget control act that reduced spending and even after the tax increase in january, that this does not get us out of the danger zone and we have hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits every year and he's projecting that interest on our debt in the 10th year will rise to $800 billion, which is about what the score of the murray budget that's on the floor today would add to our debt. and fundamentally, this budget that's before us today does not change the debt course we're on. it does not have $2 trillion in spending reductions and it leaves us in the same dangerous course as mr. elmendorf said we're on. so we've got to get off of it. i wanted to share a few things to drive home the danger that we're in. we have a strong economy. we have a great entrepreneurial spirit. we have a tremendous infrastructure

that according to the congressional budget office and by the way their budget includes the assumption of those continued sequestration levels into the next year. so, let's talk about china for a minute. i got a letter the other day from the c.e.o. of a major biotech company. here's what he said. he said, other the last couple of years, because of -- over the last couple of years, because of the reduction in our national investment in science and research, he laid off 1,000 people. 1,000 people. and because of the continuing sequester they've imposed a hiring freeze right now. those are jobs that now will not be created, that would otherwise if we hadn't had the republican approach to the sequester. and you know the real kicker? i hear mr. duffy talking about china. they're hiring people in china. not because of lower chinese wages, but because china has decided to make a robust science and health care funding a national priority. in other words, the chinese are copying the secrets to our success, things that help our economy grow, things that are slashed in the republican budget and i

i mean, the 750,000 jobs that the congressional budget office says will be lost are not the government furloughs. these are jobs lost because the federal government is spending a lot less on goods and services over a very short period of time. so that is very real. ben bernanke, the chairman of the federal reserve, was up on capitol hill testifying last week saying it would reduce our gdp growth this year by one-third. again, a very real effect. so, again, let's not pretend that this is somehow cost tree. it's going to have a very big wallop and that's why i believe that our republican colleagues would ultimately be willing to come up with a much more sensible way to reduce the deficit. >> they are not talking about revenue. you know that well, although some republicans are talking about a grand bargain. let me play a little bit of sound for you and we'll talk on the other side. all right. so let me just read it because lindsay graham said what i would like to see happen is that the president and republicans and democrats reengage where they left off with boehner. that we, as republica

back to work that's how you going to stimulate the economy you know just last week the congressional budget office put out a study saying that half of the current deficit that we have this year and three quarters of the deficit next year will be cause by economic weakness in other words unemployment or under-employment if we get people back to work that's the single best way to solve this problem to solve the deficit and you know to say somehow that medicare or social security are the programs that have caused these problems it's completely false and i think you know we're just having a real serious debate between what the republicans want to do which is again is to empower the world's wealthy and take away the programs the middle class relies on and in our plan which is create seven million jobs still cut the deficit by four point four trillion dollars but also reduced unemployment down to five percent well essentially what you're saying it seems is that we don't have a deficit problem we have a jobs problem and if we solve the jobs problem that resolves the deficit problem if that's the case why

congressional budget office has a projection that the u.s. debt to g.d.p. ratio is going to be flat for the next ten years. congressional budget office sees no problem looking ahead ten years. >> rose: flat is what? 75%? >> 75%. we'd like it to be lower -- i'm talking debt level, debt stable as share of g.d.p. >> 75%. >> that says no debt crisis for the next decade. now there is a big problems which mostly health care costs when we look at the decade ahead. but what has happened in washington, what has happened in this debate is that the prospect of -- somehow or other the current deficit has become issue number one and the result is that we have not only been doing nothing to fight unemployment we've been actively increasing unemployment. >> who is -- who has the deficit is issue number one. >> everybody! >> i don't think even paul ryan has the deficit as issue number one. i don't think erskine bowles has it. we're talking about long-term debt. >> erskine bowles told us two years ago we were going to have a fiscal crisis within the next two years. right now

their sense in that country -- in this country and that's what the numbers show from the congressional budget office. if you take the austerity approach recommended in this budget or the main republican budget, we know from the referees, nonpartisan congressional budget office, that we'll see 750,000 fewer jobs by the end of this calendar year. we know you'll see 200 -- two million fewer jobs next year which is why we say let's focus on the jobs deficit and address the budget deficit in a sustained way where we bring it down in a wlanned way, where we ask for shared responsibility, not another round of tax breaks for the folks at the very top and yes, we achieve balance in the same year the republican budget last year achieved balance but our priority is getting the country fully back to work. we also believe that when we put together these budgets, we shouldn't pretend you can have it all ways. and as i said repeatedly, the republican budget including this r.s.c. budget is based on the one hand on the claim that gets to to -- it balance in four years, or in 10 years, but at the same time they're re

just last week, the congressional budget office released a report finding that alf of the deficit in 2013 and 3/4 of the deficit in 2014 will be due to economic weakness. that means people being unemployed or underemployed and paying less in revenue rather than structural budget policies like defense spending, entitlement spending or overall tax policy. so the very problem we're facing is people aren't working and aren't able to pay taxes and guide the economy like we need to. if they're doing that we would make up 3/4 of the deficit in the next budget year alone. plain and simple, we need to get the american people back to work and the back to work budget does that by targeting a goal of 5% unemployment through investments in infrastructure, education, hiring back laid off teachers, aid to states, rehiring police, firefighters and other public employees, investing in a public works jobs program, giving tax credits to companies that create jobs in america instead of the tax breaks that are still under the republican budget that help companies that send jobs overseas. so i'm hopeful a

the congressional budget office says the debt would rise from today's 72% of gnp up to 87%., they're not flat. he's looking at numbers that contradict his own idea. >> let's show a little more. joe debated krugman's assertion that the country won't have a spending problem until the year 2025. >> joe said first nobody agrees with me then maybe three or four people. >> i said paul krugman versus the world. i meant it as a compliment. i really did. i sat there and was like, wow, he doesn't think we need to address that until 2025? >> that's not what i said. >> what did you say? >> i said we have a problem in 2025. we don't have a problem this year or next year. if it wasn't for a me and a few people loudly saying the deficit is not a problem without qualifying first that longer term it is a problem, i don't think this message of spending cuts -- >> well, by the way, paul just agreed that only three people agree with him. >> i said only three people are saying it without prefacing it with the obligatory three paragraphs. ben bernanke gave a speech last week that was for all prac

you you are that the congressional budget office has said over the last 18 months that the deficit hasfaster than any time in the history of united states. government spending.... >> sean: if we're lucky is under a trillion. you are not answering my question. this is important. are we going to spend more money than year than last year or about the same? is that the average amount we are going to spend? >> significantly less as a share of the economy. >> sean: because we're going spend about the same. it's impossible to inflict this much pain of $40 billion. >> it's about the congressional budget office says it will cut the growth rate of the u.s. by .6 'you can say small or big but, did .6% you can say small or big. >> sean: next four years are going to be the republicans fault and the debt is republicans fault. >> remember the recession. we were at the edge of a depression. >> sean: is it immoral, i think it's immoral, i'll ask you to borrow $6 trillion in four years because he accused bush of being unpatriotic and irresponsible for $4 trillion over eight years. >> it was unpatriotic

according to the congressional budget office federal tax revenue will hit $2.7 trillion this year.that's the highest number ever. ainsley? >> all right. thanks heather. >> we all know credit scores are complicated. did you know this is a 1 in 5 chance you have an error in at least one of your credit scores. here to fill us in on all of the things credit bureaus will not tell you is personal finance expert vera gibbons. >> we are tracking more than just your credit, what do you mean by this? >> not only credit whether you pay your bills on time how much debt you have but they maintain personal information like employment records where you live and when you apply for credit lenders told us if they don't like what they see employment record maybe you move around a lot you are seen as financially irresponsible. >> moving around? >> they could think you are irresponsible. you could be denied credit all together. >> we make money selling your secrets. what? >> the three major credit bureaus maintain 200 million files on consumers tracking over 60 percent of the population. some of them s

programs over the next ten years are supposed to grow, predicted to grow by c.b.o., the congressional budget office, by 80%, 80%. now, my fine budget staff has looked at those numbers, and, you know what they concluded? if we could improve those 80 programs and let them grow at 60% instead of 80%, we would save the taxpayers $1 trillion over ten years. i kid you not. $1 trillion. this goes a long way to balancing our budget, helps us in a lot of different ways, and if it's done right, it will be better for the people who need help than the present 83 disjointed programs that have no coherence and no focus on helping poor people actually improve their lives. i grew up in the country. i grew up with poor people. i was poor. we didn't have central heating. no doubt our income was below the poverty line most of the time i was growing up. we had a garden. my daddy had a country store. we got by, but we didn't have any money. i remember when we got our first air conditioner. i remember -- and it gets hot in alabama, in the south. we moved from one room to the other when you would turn it off. and you did

i don't understand why someone would want to stop something which the congressional budget office said would reduce the deficit in the future. so i guess we're going to reduce the deficit by increasing the deficit. that's sort of the logic of this amendment. the congressional budget office confirms the affordable care act reduces the deficit by more than $100 billion in the next ten years and more than a trillion dollars in the decade that follows. so the cruz amendment would roll that back. so i guess the senator wants to reduce the deficit by increasing the deficit. go figure that one out. so it's really time to stop the silly games, but i guess it will continue. after all, in 1935, the congress and president roosevelt passed the social security act. 75 years later, there are still some on the republican side who would like to get rid of that. i guess we'll continue to have a few voices -- not everyone, not everyone, but a few voices that will still be fighting the affordable care act years from now. in 1965, congress passed medicare. republicans fought it bitterly, by the way. 45 ye

that is the nonpartisan congressional budget office number. we should have taken the opportunity not only to keep the government going but to prevent the loss of over 750,000 american jobs by replacing the sequester. we can improve upon this. the senate will. i look forward to voting for it when it comes back. i hope we use the intervening time to replace the sequester in a smart way. >> bret: is this replacing the sequester? $982 billion as it is currently, the continuing resolution? >> it's not replacing it. the sequester comes in and you cut $85 billion of $3.6 trillion. this carries the sequester number forward. this gives the department of defense an mytary greater flexibility in how they go about the cuts. chris laid out his bill that he proposed numerous times but this is more taxes. the bill that the democrats propose that couldn't even get out of the senate that some democrats voted against it. that was going nowhere. this is an opportunity that had bipartisan support. move to the senate. can move us forward. remember, it met criteria

. >> sean: this president-- >> congressional budget office report you cited sean, showed that. >> seanhe cut the deficit in half the first term, he failed. he said he'd create jobs-- >> you're right, it's going to take him eight extra months to do it. >> sean: eight extra months to do it. >> the congressional budget office says he's going to do it. cut the deficit from what he inherited from bush. >> sean: that maybe it will happen in the year 2525, if we're still alive. >> it was 1.3 trillion projected when he came in and it's going to be cut in half this next year. >> sean: all right. the point is very, very simple for me. you know, there's an interesting piece, dow jones high on steroids. we look at really what our unfunded liabilities are, about 211 billion dollars, but we haven't begun to hit that area, but this president is increased spending across the board, 20%. so. >> now, wait a minute. >> sean: hang on a second. >> wait a minute. >> sean: actual spending dollars has gone up close to 20% across the board under obama. increased-- >> were you aware that spending is being cut t

the nonpartisan independent congressional budget office has shown that the approach taken in this budget will result in 750,000 fewer american jobs just by the end of this calendar year. twill reduce economic growth this calendar year by one third. we cannot afford to do that. and an analysis yesterday estimates that next year 2014 it will cost us 2 million jobs. so the issue is not whether we should steadily reduce our long-term deficit but how we do it. we believe that our budgets should be blueprint force economic growth that lead to greater upward mobility rising middle class wages and shared prosperity. we believe we should share responsibility for reducing the deficit rather than providing tax breaks for the very wealthy while balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, on the backs of our kids education and by violating our commitment to seniors. this republican budget once again takes an ideological uncompromising approach to addressing that budget challenge. to chairman last year we were told that presidential election was going to give the american people the opportu

the actuaries or the white house and the cbo, the congressional budget office, who in a study in 2009, said apples to apples, average premiums will stay roughly where they are or fall? >> i think the key point is both are talking besides the point. we are not talking about the vast majority of americans, vast majority of americans have employer sponsored insurance, this is a small stud, about those that are in the individual market. in that market, the premiums are will probably rise. not as much as the study said, but it will be offset by tax credits that are a rkey element of the law. >> who pays the tax subsidies? >> they are paid for by spending reductions that are part of the act. >> i agree with you, this is only pertaining to those in the individual masrket. what happens, not only to just the average premium, so, are there groups that will end up paying a lot more and groups under obamacare who for individual policies may pay less than they otherwise would have? >> basically anybody who is low income, below 2.5% the poverty line, they will pay, or about $40,000 for a family. th

economist from the chairman of the federal reserve to macroeconomic advisers to the independent congressional budget officeid this will be very harmful to the economy. the congressional budget office says this will cost us 750,000 jobs, 0.6%, over half a percent of economic growth. this is right at a time when it's starting to look like our recovery could take hold. what that means every time you see an economic number the next few months, you will know there's less jobs being created that would have been had we come to a bipartisan agreement. >> also honestly that works well for you, doesn't it? if the economy didn't go up as much as you thought or unemployment go down as much, well, if we didn't have these sequesters. >> i want to make this really clear, this sequester is a win for nobody. it's just a loss for the american people. >> how come nobody is talking then. both sides say this is awful, this is terrible. the economy is not going to be as good as it should be and nobody is talking about ending it? >> first of all, i want you to know this president is doing everything he can. he brought the republ

there is an independent referee, the congressional budget office, that scores everyone's budget. this for our budget, the president's budget. that will be the official number. they scored the house budget to balance in 10 years. a budget does not implement tax reform, it calls for tax reform. it calls on the various committees to do certain things. we will be calling on the natural resources and energy committee and commerce to increase energy production. that does not say exactly how to do it. the ways and means committee will be called upon to implement tax reform. what we mean is to close -- close loopholes. we closed loopholes to work overall rates. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world right now. it makes america uncompetitive. instead of a 35% rate, which is the highest in the world, go down to a 25% rate. have a fair tax break for families so they know the rules of the game. so if they want a better system that is fair, there will also be able to have that option, too. the details will be worked out with the ways and means committee but it would have to be do

the congressional budget office debt projections show pretty much stable u.s. indetectivedness for the next ten years. they do not show anything that looks like a crisis. we have long, long run problems but not anything that has to be dealt with this year or five years from now or seven years from now. >> are you worried about the consumers who paired their debt? it was much higher than a decade, decade and a half ago? >> consumers continued to pear it back some. that's one of the reasons we've had such a slow recovery. it's on the right trajectory. >> if you look at the biggest challenges that you see facing the u.s. economy over the next decade give me three that come top at mind. >> first of all we're part of a year. we're not alone. europe is really a mess. i worry about blow back from the split cat swachlths that's an economic political problem. i worry about our own politics. we have, you know, it's one thing. i don't think we need a grand bargain but we need a functioning government. i'm not sure we have that. finally i think the environmental issues, we

where we have a congressional budget office that says in just 12 years we will only have enough to pay for interest and entitled and nothing else. >> now, if you watch way too early you know that already. elizabeth colbert-bush. the sister of stephen colbert. she stressed the importance of building up the workforce. >> we're going to continue with workforce development, continue with continuing education and we're going to make sure we have research technology and innovation that's going to make our next generation prepare for their intellectual move forward into the 21st century jobs. >>> now to kentucky. new reporting suggests a number of big-time democrats not particularly thrilled with the idea of ashley judd challenging mitch mccouple in that state. some party leaders, including former president bill clinton, are trying to court another candidate, another female, allison lundergan grimes. ms. judd will make her announcement later this spring, a claim she has denied. her sister said of course i'd vote for her. i don't agree with anything she says half the time. we're so different.

it imposes a set of indiscriminate cuts, will slow economic growth and job creation, the congressional budget office predicts it will reduce gdp growth by 0.6% and lower employment by 750,000 jobs, compared to where it otherwise would be, and it doesn't solve our long run problem. it does nothing to address the long run drivers of our deficit problems, which are health care costs for an aging population. >> reporter: so does the economy need more stimulus, mormon tee more monetary help? >> as a general comment i don't comment on monetary help, i leave that that to the federal fiscal agency. i think what the economy would benefit most is reducing deficit in a balanced way. the president proposeds closing tax loopholes which disor the the economy, that we reform entitlements so they are there for future generations and we make smart spending cuts while we support investment in things like infrastructure today, where we still have tremendous need to improve our infrastructure, put more construction workers back to work right now and raise our competitiveness in the future so our businesses can do bette

the congressional budget office, the congressional budget office when this congress, although not withthe stimulus package, said yes, if you borrow from the future $870 billion and you spend it today, you'll get an economic growth for a few years, but quickly it goes away. the money has been spent. the little lift in the economy is over. what's left then? you're carrying another $870 billion plus interest, now you're at a trillion dollars in new debt that you have to pay interest on every year, and the growth benefit is long gone. they scored -- hear this, colleagues. back in -- when the president took office and he pushed through the stimulus package, they said over ten-year period, you will have less growth if you have a stimulus package than if you don't have a stimulus package. did you hear that, my colleagues? that's so important for us to understand, that you can't get something from nothing. nothing comes from nothing. nothing ever could, julie andrews sang in "the sound of music." nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. so you borrow the money and you spend it today, an

you wonder where does it get us long term and how are we able to close the gap here the congressional budget office has looked at what they consider to be the most likely outcome of the ongoing negotiations which, is a marshal implementation of these spending cuts and what you see here are two lines. the top line is out lace as a percentage of gdp or government spending as a percentage of gdp and starting today and going out through the end of 2022 and this is a forecast for the next nine years and going below that is rather a new as a% of gdp and what you take way here is what are we dealing with this budget deficit problem for some time if there is a good side to that, if you can continue to gro

sixty seven billion dollars since the american led invasion and that's according to the congressional budget office but national priorities project a u.s. research group they estimate the real cost at over eight hundred billion dollars and they add that some funds are still being spent on ongoing projects and that number continues to rise every second now a major problem it seems is that all this cash the u.s. is coughing up isn't falling into the right hands or projects iraqi prime minister nouri al maliki says funding could have brought a great change in iraq but there was misspending of money i want to give you some examples of this missed spending if you can call it that there are too many to name but here are some that i think really stand out in iraq's diyala province the u.s. began building a prison in two thousand and four but abandon the project after three years to flee a surge in violence now have complete facility cost american taxpayers forty million dollars but since in rubble and there are no plans to ever finish or use it according to the justice ministry also sub contractors overch

now, as these cuts kick in, the congressional budget office says about 750,000 jobs will be lost thislone. ken, president obama set to sign the order in about 3.5 hours. >> and there it goes. $85billion. tara mergener in washington, with the very latest, thank you. >>> california could stand to lose the most in this sequester. the obama administration says the cuts could mean an $87 million cut for funding for primary and secondary education in the state. that would put 1200 teacher and teachers aides jobs at risk. as many as 8200 children could lose access to preschool. so far there's no timeline on when those cuts would kick in. >>> a new discovery linking a common household product to an increase in asthma in young children. dr. kim mulvihill on why it's so tough for parents to avoid the danger. >> like many moms lauralee worries about how chemicals in cans and plastics could affect her 3-year-old son. she takes steps to avoid bisphenol a, bpa. >> we have tried to make sure this is bpa free. >> reporter: though banned from baby bottles and sippy cups it's found in some plastic food

you wonder where does it get us long term and how are we able to close the gap here the congressional budget officeooked at what they consider to be the most likely outcome of the ongoing negotiations which, is a marshal implementation of these spending cuts and what you see here are two lines. the top line is out lace as a percentage of gdp or government spending as a percentage of gdp and starting today and going out through the end of 2022 and this is a forecast for the next nine years and going below that is rather a new as a% of gdp and what you take way here is what are we dealing with this budget deficit problem for some time if there is a good side to that, if you can continue to grow an economy, even with a budget deficit, what you are looking at here is gdp but not the way that you are used to looking at it more often than that phot what we talk about d g t we focused on the economy quarter growth range and whether it grew during the quarter this teems you in terms of a absolutely level base basis and reason i'm showing it this way is because for all four quarters of last year the overall

tours and maybe canceling the easter egg roll, real jobs are getting cut, the nonpartisan congressional budget officestimates the economy will lose 750,000 jobs by the end of this year. some economists say the number is inflated since government agencies may choose to reduce worker hours rather than lay them off. layoffs and furlough notices are going out to workers affecting defense to nuclear waste cleanups to parks and recreation. we bring back marc lamont hill and will cain. you say the budget cuts are designed to make the president look bad. the white house is trying to mitigate the effects of the forced cuts. americans don't seem to have reacted to the cuts overall. >> many americans aren't feeling it on the ground and secondly many americans are just tired, overwhelmed with the narratives of fiscal doom from debt ceilings to fiscal cliffs. we keep hearing the sky is falling. >> what it about trying to make the president look bad. you think republicans like this is hanging out there and they think if there's no apocalypse it will make the president look bad? >> i think they miscalculated, they