dr. rivlin? >> well, i agree with the senator. i think the idea, we believe that actually on a well- designed -- a competition on a well-designed exchange between comprehensive health plans, particularly capitated plans, they would win out in a fair competition. there are parts of the country, especially rural parts of the country, where it probably is not feasible right now to do that, and that is why we think there ought to be a transition, and that it is much less scary for seniors to say if you like what you've got, you can stay with it, but you are going to be offered something which is likely better. >> i would say you look at some of the policies in the -- pilot projects in the affordable health care act, the have some good examples in their of experiments going on today to do just what you are talking about. >> thank you all very much. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. congressman van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to join my colleagues in thanking all of you for you

dr. rivlin? >> well, i agree with the senator, i think that the idea, we believe, that actually competition between on a well designed exchange between comprehensive health plans particularly capped plans, they would win out in a fair competition. there are parts of the country, especially rural parts of the country, where it probably isn't feasible right now to do that, and that's why we think there ought to be a transition, and that it is much less scarry for seniors to say if you like what you've got, you can stay with it, and -- but, you're going to be offered something, which is likely better. >> yeah, and i would say if you look at the pilot projects in the affordable health care act, they have some good examples in there of experiments going on today to do just what you're talking about. >> okay. thank you, all, very much. >> the gentleman yields back. the co-chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland, congressman january hollen. >> thank you, chairman, and i thank you all for your s

dr. rivlin? >> we agree, we were attacks expenditures in the tax code, and they are almost identical with expenditures that are called spending. there's another reason, however, why you need a balanced approach, and that, i think, is the demographics. this government is going to have to absorb a doubling of the number of people over 65 in the next couple of decades. that's an awful lot of people. that is not changing the role of government. that's absorbing a lot more people which we can't do unless we have some manufacture revenue. we must bend the curve on health care. we must fix social security, but we can't do it in such a drastic way, but we can absorb all of those people without more revenue. >> yes, senator? >> might i just say, i think you all know, you, madam chairman, and a couple other senators, have known me for a long time, and i didn't come on this committee trying to get anything -- i didn't have any preconceived percentages. i said let's start over. the truth of the matter is eve

dr. rivlin, you pointed out your plan had about $650 million in payroll relief. you said you would go bigger than the president's job plan. do you believe something like that is necessary at this time? >> yes. i think we are in danger of slipping into stagnation and should do something about it. >> do you agree it would be a bad idea for every working american to see an increase in their payroll tax relative to last year? >> i think was about $240 billion in the president's plan. it is hard for me as a fiscal conservative to say this, but i could support a continuation of the payroll tax deduction for another year for employees. it is very hard for me to understand how a $600 deduction for the employer on a temporary basis is going to be enough to get them to hire a full-time, permanent employee. i do not think i would support the payroll tax deduction for the employer. i could see supporting it for the employee if we could pay for it. >> i would not argue if you followed his suggestion. what he is talking about is certainly better than nothing. >> dr. rivlin, yo

dr. rivlin, i have had the honor and pleasure of serving with you. i was somewhat familiar with your plan with house budget committee chairman paul ryan. you now have what i believe you have called a defined support system. as i was listening to your testimony, it includes an aspect of maintaining some facet of the currency for service aspect for medicare. could you tell me why this form of the find support is critical to saving us from the national debt crisis? how does it differ from your earlier premium support program with chairman ryan? >> it is different in several respects. it preserves traditional medicare for anyone who wants it. i think that is important. it is important to seniors. and it is important to have -- you should forgive the expression -- "a public auction." -- "a publick option." seniors would choose from an array of plans that provided at least the same benefits as medicare and competed with each other and with traditional medicare to produce them in the most cost-effective way. we believe that that would control the cost. the

dr. alice rivlin is a vice chair of the federal reserve, served in the clinton and in the station, and isdirector of the congressional budget office. he served with senator day medici on a bipartisan policy center's task force for debt reduction. i want to thank each of the witnesses for their work. there are many other fine organizations and think tanks that have added value to the process. this particular chose to hear from these four individuals and these two bodies. the chair will not yield to himself for an opening statement. we did the chair will now yield to himself for an opening statement. -- the chair will now deal to sell for an opening statement. i believe we will hear that we are facing a genuine crisis. we're operating on borrowed money and time. i never tire of reminding myself and the public and mcauliffes the although we have a statutory goal -- and my colleagues that although we have a statutory gold to reduce the deficit -- we have a statutory goal to reduce the deficit, more importantly, we have a statutory duty to legislation that would improve the nation's long-term