the problem as larry lindsey. out, is not that somebody is not going to get a coupon onin august of this year, but that in 10 years we are not going to be able to pay anybody anything on our debt. is that 10 years which is now at stake. i will give y one example of the demagoguery on the part of the democrats'. what republicans would like is what was propoposed by lieberman and coburn, which is to index retirement age of medicare the way social security was in the greenspan commission in the early 1980's. as a result, social security is now about 66, 67, but still stuck at 65 for medi-scare. if you index eight -- >> you are right. >> you will save billions of dollars. the democrats want, and you know why? medicare is the one issue of next year. you are telling me that democrats and the president are serious about -- >> here -- >> washington is still stuck in outer partisanship. but on this one particular issue, everybody thinks about this for half a second realizes that you absolutely have to -- is notegotiable, n

the problem, as larry lindsey pointed out, is not that somebody is not going to get a coupon on the debt in august of this year, but that in 10 years, we're not going to be able to pay anybody anything on our debt. is that many years which is now at stake. i will give you -- he is that 10 years which is at stake. i will give you an example of the demagoguery of democrats. the proposal by a lieberman and coburn to index retirement and medicare at the way social security was in the greenspan commission of the early 1980's -- as a result, social security is 66, 67, but he stuck to 65 of medicare. if you index at 200, you will save billions of dollars. the democrats, however, won't, and you know why? medicare is the one issue of next year. you are telling me that democrats and the president are serious about -- >> washington is still stuck in partisanship. on this one particular issue, everybody who thinks about this for half a second realizes that you absolutely have to -- it is not negotiable, not a document -- you have to, have to, after raise taxes and you have to, have to, have to cut e

the problem, as larry lindsey pointed out, is not that somebody is going to get a coupon on the debt in august of this year, but that in can be years, we're not going to be able to pay anybody anything -- on the anything in 10 years we -- will not be able to pay anybody anything on the debt. it is that 10 years at stake. i will give you one example of the demagoguery on the part of the democrats. what republicans want is what was proposed by lieberman and coburn, to index medicaid and medicare to what socials credit was in t 19 -- like social security was with the greenspan commission in the early 1980's. if you in exit, you will save billions of dollars. the democrats, however, will not, and you know why? medicare is the one issue of next year. and you are telling me that democrats and the president is serious about -- >> washington is still stuck in our partisanship. on this one particular issue, everybody thinks about this for half a second realizes that you absolutely have to -- it is not negotiable, it is not an argument -- you have to get beyond it because you have to, have to,

the problem, as larry lindsey pointed out, is not that somebody is going to get a coupon on the debt in august of this year, but that in can be years, we're not going to be able to pay anybody anything -- on the anything in 10 years we -- will not be able to pay anybody anything on the debt. it is that 10 years at stake. i will give you one example of the demagoguery on the part of the democrats. what republicans want is what was proposed by lieberman and coburn, to index medicaid and medicare to what socials credit was in t 19 -- like social security was with the greenspan commission in the early 1980's. if you in exit, you will save billions of dollars. the democrats, however, will not, and you know why? medicare is the one issue of next year. and you are telling me that democrats and the president is serious about -- >> washington is still stuck in our partisanship. on this one particular issue, everybody thinks about this for half a second realizes that you absolutely have to -- it is not negotiable, it is not an argument -- you have to get beyond it because you have to, have to,

rates -- there was a great op-ed written in "the wall street journal" a couple of weeks ago by larry lindsey, who was a former economic advisor to president bush, also a member of the federal reserve board of governors, and he pointed out that if interest rates return to their 20-year average, that it would add $4.9 trillion in additional borrowing costs over the next decade. so everything that we're talking about here in this debate about the debt limit in terms of reducing spending really pales in comparison to just a normalization of interest rates. if we saw interest rates go back to what is a 20-year average, we would see an additional $4.9 trillion that we would have to spend to finance our debt. and that is a staggering statistic, mr. president. i think, again, it speaks to the need for us to get our spending under control. because the amount that we borrow, as it continues to go up, ratchet up, we continue to get further, and further in debt fen the likelihood is that our -interest rates will continue to go up and we'll end up spending more and more on higher interest. so i think tha

unfortunately, as former bush economic advisor and federal reserve board governors member larry lindsey pointed out in a "wall street journal" op-ed recently and reiterated yesterday at a finance committee hearing, even a normalizeation of interest rates in the united states at an historical average for the past 20 years would add $4.9 trillion to our projected debt over the next ten years. madam president, we can't afford the spending that we have now, let alone this additional interest. we need to start cutting spending now. both the cut, cap, and balance plan and the boehner plan would do this. we also need to create a process to reform entitlements. the cut, cap, and balance plan does this by capping spending. and the boehner plan does this through a new joint committee that has a firm deadline for congressional action yet this year. i wish i could say, madam president, there was a plan by the president that does this. there isn't. and that's why we here in the united states senate and the house of representatives are going to have to take the leadership in this debate. the presiden

you know, as you noticed the other day when larry lindsey wrote about it in the "wall street journal," he said, if interest rates go up to where they historically have been, we'll add another $5 trillion. i don't think we can withstand it. my sphere that the economy won't withstand it, that our country won't withstand it and that we do have to have somebody who will stand up and say, enough's enough. the country needs to have a plan. we need to budget how much money comes in and how much we can spend. and i think this is a good first step. mr. sessions: thank you. i can't think of a more important time in history for us to return to the tried-and-true budgetary process than at a time in which we are spending to a degree that's irresponsible, above anything we've ever done before. it's really threatening the american economy. it's not a light, little problem. it's a serious problem. so we've got 805, 806 days without a budget and that is -- so we've gone 805, 806 days without a budget, and that is a serious problem. so we're going to continue to work to insist that we proceed on the re

larry king. there were guys with snowmobile machines going around national park screaming at us. that was the extend of it. this is extraordinarily significant. i will say that the people i mentioned, steve and lindsey graham and matt, these people would understand, mark sanford would understand what would happen in the case of default. i think, in that respect, we would have never allowed this to come to this point. we would have fought like hell. the difference is we would push to take the $4 trillion deal this group didn't take. you get $4 trillion, closing tax loopholes. >> they were pushing like hell. they got a deal none of us thought they would get. no tax increases. significant spending reductions. they got what they say they want. take it and move on and save the country. >> the question is whether at the end of the day, john boehner fit wasn't tight enough. if you have a speaker you respect, that speaker usually gets one or two free shots. newt gingrich said to us, a lot of us didn't care for him too much but at the end of the government shutdown, i have never asked you for a vote. i have never said do this for me personally, but we need to reopen the government. it's going to finish the r