dan mitchell, are you convinced? the republicans do nothing, it goes through. >> republicans do have the upper hand. unlike the fiscal cliff where obama could get a tax increase by doing nothing, republicans could get a little spending restraint by doing nothing. buts i worry as your guest from "time" magazine pointed out there's not one, there's two opportunities for republicans to fumble away this victory. first where the continuing resolution expires zme dot rest of the budget for fiscal 2013 and then when they dot appropriations for fiscal 2014. and we've already seen the republican house appropriations committee chairman saying he's going to put spending higher than the sequester level. so it's up to boehner and cantor and the rest of the gop leadership to say no, we're actually going to make sure that we don't have ever-growing government. so perhaps we won't wind up -- at least as fast as we think. >> this is a big political problem. if they don't have the courage to stay on track with these minuscule budget c

dan mitchell, i want your professional opinion. we spent our heads off for the still luck package in 2009. this is still the worst economic recovery in the postwar period. dan, why not try limited government? or let me put it a different way, slightly less spending, is that good or bad for the economy? >> the congressional budget office is still wedded to the 1950s, 1960s style keynesian model. more government spending simply diverts resources from the product of sector of the economy. it's not a recipe for growth. if it was france would be prosperous and hong kong and singapore would be in permanent recession. we need smaller government and lower taxes and obama wants to go the other direction. that's a big mistake. >> larry, for reasons that i think are probably pretty good with a lot of money riding on them, people listen a lot more to the cbo. >> that's a little unfair, jared. everybody conventional forecast -- you don't have to be a keynesian. look at goldman sachs, look at -- >> goldman sachs -- >> look at macroeconomic advise

with me now, dan mitchell, richard benjamin. welcome back to the show. this might be a little bit of a heated conversation. i will start with you. this sounds a bit absurd. to be able to sue because you don't get a job because you have been out of work. isn't that just -- you are just out of luck. >> you are out of luck, but what worries me more about this proposal is that if you have been unemployed for a long time, you probably are a little bit radioactive to employers because they wonder, why has this person than that of work. did not have good work habits, show up on time, steal from the company. you're already starting with all the liabilities and it's unfortunate for the people that are honest and hardworking and just one of fair chance. what happens when the government turns that potential employees it wants to get a job into a legal liability? vendor going to have companies, i think, going out of their way trying to make sure that somehow those people don't even come to the door because nobody wants us look employer tecumseh them on the basis tha

dan mitchell on what rates america will be seen next 100 years. you know, here is the thing. basically we are seeing the income tax celebrating its 100 anniversary. back then, it was unconstitutional to have an income tax. what do you make of the direction the country is in with where they are right now? >> well, this is just an argument for euthanasia. i think 100 years is plenty long enough to have the income tax. what is really tragic is that we would not have the modern welfare state with all the economic damage it imposes if we had not given politician the ability to live levy a broad-based tax like the income tax. but as you point out, it is just going to get worse in the future because we have these out-of-control entitlement programs. we have politicians who can't resist using the income tax both as a vehicle to constantly raise tax rates and grab one of our money and then as a vehicle for all of these corrupt loopholes, deductions, exclusions, exemptions and shelters. it's a nightmare for ordinary hard-working people. liz: why are republicans losing the fight on a si