mr. donovan. the problem is your policy. tax more, spend more, borrow more, regulate more, obamacare more, an immigration policy that dominates the market with workers from abroad, when we don't have enough jobs for american workers, pulling down wages of americans. that's what caused this problem. in my opinion. and that's where we disagree, senator sanders. we got a problem, but your ideas will not work, they will never work. now, mr. donovan, reckless spending endang rs the future of the public. we remain on an unsustainable debt course. let me ask you, does your budget spend more or less than the, that we agree to with president obama in the budget control act of 2011? >> our budget overall reduces spending relative to current law. >> i just asked a simple question. you work with the taxpayers, mr. donovan. i'm asking you on their behalf a simple question. does your budget spend more money next year than the current law of the budget control act allows? >> overall, our budget reduces spending

mr. donovan. you're projecting a less than average economy. >> i think -- not to get too technical about the way budget forecasting is done, but we are not unlike dynamic scoring or aunli range of other things, ing projecting substantial impacts on these figures because that ises bec not what is traditionally done n in budgetary forecasts. >> i c come from the private sector, mr. donovan. just to draw an analogy here. this would be like the president like of a company standing up to his ng employees and wsaying, we're below average.r the revenues for the next ten years are going to be below average. the expenses for the next ten years are going to be above average. our profits are going to be below average. your pay is going to be below average. that in essence is what this budget is telling the american people. i know what i would say as a. shareholder. i would say, mr. president, you're fired. what would you say?de >> i would say we should come together on a bipartisan basis and invest in the th

mr. donovan.l be i suspect a major debate coming forward on social security. and i happen to believe not only that we should not cut social security but we should expand benefits. i suspect my republican colleaguesÁdisagree. but, the first order of business done by the house republicans was to pass a rule which could result in a 20% reduction in benefits for people who receive disability benefits laying the groundwork for either cuts into disability benefits or in fact social security for older people. your budget did not do that. you did what has been done 11 times in the past, what we call re-adjust. social security has enough money to pay all benefits for the next 18 years. you simply took money from one account and into the n why did you do that? >> well as you said, senator, this small reallocation of social5ç0@q security taxes is the simplest, most direct way to ensure that on a combined basis both social security trust funds are -- have reserves available through 2033. and this is a step th

mr. donovan. sometimes it's difficult to find the consistency within the statements that are made and the actual budget, and i want to go through a couple items. the first that i'll just point out is that the mindless austerity that you refer to and the president refers to is actually the president's idea of the sequester when it came up in 2011. so it might be a little better to put that in a different phrase. i do want to, however, turn to the issue of this dollar for dollar point that you've made and the president made. the president stated this past monday that he would match -- quote, match the investments that were made domestically dollar for dollar with increases in our defense funding. as you just stated in your opening statement and in your prepared remarks this budget ends sequestration, fully reversing it matched by equal dollar increases for defense. if you dig through the budget to your tables, and the table that i'm referring to is on page 132-s-10 that show the discretionary cap ch

mr. donovan, i want to thank you again for your time today. the committee has received your written statement and it will be made part of the formal hearing record. you have five minutes to deliver your oral remarks and you may begin when ready. >> thank you, chairman price, ranking member van hollen, members of the committee. thank you all for welcoming me here today to present the president's 2016 budget. in my first few months i've heard from so many of you on both sides of the aisle the need to get back to regular order on our budget process and i hope that this on-time budget that i'm presenting today is the first step in helping us do that. the budget comes on the heels of a break-through year for america and builds on our economic and fiscal progress, including the fastest job growth since the 1990s and the fastest sustained period of deficit reduction in 60 years. the budget is a blueprint for the president's vision for middle class economics in the 21st century. this means helping working families by making their paychecks go further,

mr. donovan. sometimes it's difficult to find the consistency within the statements that are made and the actual budget and i want to go through a couple items. the first that i'll just point out is that the mindless austerity that you refer to and the president refers to is actually the president's idea of the sequester when it came up in 2011. so it might be a little better to put that in a different phrase. i do want to however, turn to the issue of this dollar for dollar point that you've made and the president made. the president stated this past monday that he would match -- quote, match the investments that were made domestically dollar for dollar with increases in our defense funding. as you just stated in your opening statement and in your prepared remarks this budget ebds sequestration, fully reversing it matched by equal dollar increases for defense. if you dig through the budget to your tables and the table that i'm referring to is on page 132-s-10 that show the discretionary cap chang

mr. donovan. i'm asking you on their behalf a simple question. does your budget spend more money next year than the current law of the budget control act allows? >> overall, our budget reduces spend ing spending compared to current law. >> overall, your budget spends $74 billion more nec year than allowed by current law. isn't that true? is. >> i think what you're focused on, snarpt is diskrer nar spending and i think there is broad agreement that -- >> that's what the budget control act -- >> sequestration is hurting our military readiness. staff testified to that this past week and it is hurting our able the tyty to invest in the things. >> you work with people shlg mr. donovan. i asked you do you propose spending -- than was agreed to in the budget control act. yes or no. >> i believe i've answered it. >> no you haven't. >> reverse sequestration and our budget fully pays for those increased investments on the discretionary side with mandatory spending reductions and cutting spending, wasteful s

mr. donovan. the problem is your policy. tax more, spend more, borrow more, regulate more, obamacare more, an immigration policy that dominates the market with workers from abroad, when we don't have enough jobs for american workers, pulling down wages of americans. that's what caused this problem. in my opinion. and that's where we disagree, senator sanders. we got a problem, but your ideas will not work, they will never work. now, mr. donovan, reckless spending endang rs the future of the public. we remain on an unsustainable debt course. let me ask you, does your budget spend more or less than the, that we agree to with president obama in the budget control act of 2011? >> our budget overall reduces spending relative to current law. >> i just asked a simple question. you work with the taxpayers, mr. donovan. i'm asking you on their behalf a simple question. does your budget spend more money next year than the current law of the budget control act allows? >> overall, our budget reduces spending

mr. donovan. at the end of the sequestration as we have it today under the budget control act, what percent of gdp will be spent on defense? >> i don't have that number in front of me. if you do, please tell me. >> between 2.3% and 2.7%. in terms of historical averages since world war ii what have we been spending on defense? >> significantly higher than that. >> do you agree that the threats in the world don't justify going to 2.7 2.3%? >> we fully agree and this budget makes clear that sequestration is a threat to our military readiness and we ought to reverse it. >> back to senator sessions' questions, you do spend more than the budget control cap. you say you account for it by off setting in mandatory senator portman may challenge that a bit, but there's a desire by some of us on the committee to replace sequestration, at least most of it, with a revenue component and a mandatory reform component. i just want to be in the camp of saying i'm not going to support a budget that continues to gut t

mr. donovan. you're counting a short-term window in which they would pay in, creating a short-term surplus of money or additional flow of money, but you're not counting when they draw out. it's going make the social security hold deeper. it's going make it harder for us to save social security and medicare and you know it. and you're suggesting to the american people directly directly different than that. it's wrong. >> senator, you don't need to take my word for it. the actuary -- >> senator's time has expired. >> along with cbo suggests the action by the president will reduce. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much chairman. >> good to have you here. could you please tell us a little bit about the part of your budget document that is called federal budget exposure to climate risk? and what you see and anticipate in terms of costs of taxpayers will bear from our failure to address a climate change problem? >> what we've done for the very first time is to very specifically quantify as much

mr. donovan for your hard work and that of your agency. can we put up a slide on discussion their caps in the president's budget? there was a suggestion earlier on that somehow the pet's budget increases nondefense spending and at a much higher rate. but sbt it true that it's both exactly the same isle mount. >> that's exactly right. and my point is the way we look at the budget is compared to what would happen under current law. and what we're proposing is dollar-for-dollar increases compared to sequestration and what would happen in the years after that. that's right. >> thank you. the reason i asked that question is i've served on active duty. and my second question is is there anything in the budget related to base closures do mesically? >> so we are calling for a bipartisan effort to create another b.r.a.c. commission that would look for potential in the savings department successfully to make some hard decisions about where we locate our armed forces. >> thank you. and then my third question is dynamic scoring. so on the third day, i

mr. donovan, thank you as well for providing this budget on time. i'm the rookie here and the benefit of that is you've run out of senators here today. but i would like to submit some questions later though in writing. but i have one question. and that is the severity in this debt that it is sustainable at about 95% of gdp. i personally disagree that gdp is the denominator and i believe growth should be the denominator. but i want to reads you a quote and put this in context. this is a quote from president obama june 23rd, 2008. the way bush has done it over the last eight years is to drive up our national debt from the first 52 presidents, bush 23 added some we have $9 trillion in debt that we're going to have to pay back. that's irresponsible. let me put it in context, in the year 2000 our debt to gdp was 55% of gdp. in 2010 -- or 2008 actually we added $4 trillion to the $6 trillion debt and since the last six years we added $8 trillion to that. this budget takes it up to $26 trillion. and at $18 trillion and if interest rates and i'm concerned a

mr. donovan, you said the budget would allow for social security. i have not read the budget yet.ow would it strengthen social security? >> broadly speaking, the long-term deficit is significantly helped by this budget. to be clear, the numbers were put out last week. under current law, we would see both death -- deficits grow above 4% of gdp, and the debt grow over 80% of gdp. what this budget does is, reverse that course. it keeps deficits under 3% of gdp every year of the budget window, and critically, it starts to bend the curve on debt and begins to reduce debt as a share of gdp. specifically on social security, one of the fundamental problems we are facing is that the number of workers that we have relative to the number of retirees that are supported by social security, has been shrinking. comprehensive immigration reform is actually one of the most critical things we can do to shore up long-term solvency of social security and, as a result improve our deficit challenges in the long run. in fact, you might have seen last week that just from the executive action that the pre

mr. donovan, you said the budget would be good for social security. i haven't had a chance to read the budget this morning. can you tell us exactly how this budget would strengthen the social security. >> well, broadly speaking the long-term deficit is significantly helped by this budget, just to be clear and cbo put out the numbers last week. under current law we would see both deficits grow above 4% of gdp and the debt grow over 8:00ty percent of gdp. what this budget does is to reverse that course. it keeps deficits under 3% of gdp every year of the budget window. and, critically it starts to bend that curve on debt so it stablizes and then begins to reduce debt as a share of gdp. specifically on social security, trust fund, one of the fundamental problems we're facing is that the number of workers that we have relative to the number of retirees that are supported by social security has been shrinking. and so comprehensive immigration reform is actually one of the most critical things that we can do to shore up the long term solvency of social secu

mr. oh donovan and others on the broad out lines of this budget. under the process that we are operating under as we call it regular order the two budget committees will go to work and they will take the budget and they'll go through it and they will come up with their broad blueprint of what they would like to see fiscal policy be for the next year or ten years or longer. and they -- the two budget committees will report out of their committees. their budget blueprints and go to the senate and house floors and for the first time in five years hopefully with republicans in control, they intend to conference agreement and that conference agreement is between laying out the blueprint, the fiscal blueprint for the years coming up and it will become the basis upon which then guide the committees of jurisdiction on filling out the blueprint, building the house if you like and moving forward. if everything works the way it's supposed to, which isn't always the case of course, it would be tax filing day april the 15th when congress would have its answer t

mr. break it down for you coming up next. plus this. >> i'll jim donovan. three's on your side with places you can get your taxes done for free and a credit you need to apply for, otherwise you'll leave money on the >> live right look at chicago where the national weather service issued blizzard warning for later this afternoon. you can see, the snow, already falling there, making for some tough driving conditions. residents are being warned about the potential white out conditions. this is all part of the system headed our way later today. but hopefully we don't get clobbered, like they are. carol? >> in philadelphia we will not get clobbered by there is but could be finding some ice that can clobber you pretty quickly. the amount through philadelphia, though, should be about an inch, more the farther north you go. right now our weather watch verse awake mend. slow glad, thank you thank you for your groundhog cents because we're looking at 26 degrees, this is out in moorestown, new jersey, and what does aj have to say? calm winds brisk temperatures, this m

mr. donovan for being here today. earlier "alice in wonderland" was mentioned. i'd like to bring up esop's fable, the ant and grasshopper. we're familiar with that, we should be. ant was diligent preparing for the winter, warned the grasshopper end he should as well. the grasshopper was undisciplined and accommodativedismissive. we know how that turned out, in the winter he starved. if this is in indication the administration is playing the role of the grasshopper. what you're trying to sell the american people on is the idea the obama budget in its best yeast has a deficit of $463 billion and adds almost $1 trillion more to our debt. this might make sense to the administration but defies common sense. if you spend more than you take in each year especially with $19 trillion debt can you honestly believe this is a responsible budget? >> i believe if you look at the record. >> no, it's not the record. the question is if you spend more than you take in is that responsible budgeting? >> this is a responsible budget. it k

mr. donovan, who headed up that effort. i appreciate the work you and your team did to make that happen. being on time is a first small step toward restoring regular order on the budget and it can help our constituents understand a little better what's happening in washington. however, our constituents also understand these truths. i know it from traveling to wyoming and visiting with people and visiting with people around the country. they think we spend too much. they think we tax too much. they think we regulate too. that we borrow too much. and their biggest worry is that we owe too much. every year since the president took office, he has proposed the same approach to the fiscal challenge facing our government, he wants to spend more, he wants to tax more, he wants to regulate more, he wants to borrow more, and he wants to owe more and more and more and more. his plans always end up with the americans holding the tab, stuck with the deficits and debt as far as the eye can see. and incidentally, i don't like that word de