the senior economist at the penn wharton budget model.dwringing over how one does indeed pay for such enormous investments in the united states. the cbo not liking the way in which it pays for future earnings on that investment. what do you think about the deficit? >> the latest bill, as compared the compromise, definitely increases deficits and debts a little bit. they are depending a lot on money that is being returned from covid and a number of other programs that would have been returned to the u.s. treasury. but that money will now be spent on infrastructure, so that will raise the debt and deficit in the short and long run. romaine: when we talk about some of these provisions, some would ask what you have a bill, you have proposals here that some would argue would actually contribute to gdp growth, do you need sort of a pay-in in order to justify that? >> certainly, for the infrastructure is going to be productive and it will help increase gdp. particularly over the long run, it takes a long time for infrastructure to become product

trillion slated for hard infrastructure projects like roads, rail, bridges and broadband, the penn whartoneven the next 30 years. this record spending cocould do a lot of damage if it is not fully paid for, and speaker pelosi said this morning that may not be possible. >> i'd like to have it totally paid for, we'll see what is possible. >> reporter: [inaudible] the $3.5 trillion price tag is misleading. >> even with the tax increases through the blueprint of the budget resolution, you still had $17 trillion -- add 17 trillion to the deficit. every economist will say at our level of debt and spending will lead to a financial crisis. even cbo said that. with rising debt will lead to a financial crisis. they couldn't predict when, but they said that it would. >> reporter: and, neil, the downside of this deaf deficit spending could be putting a match on this inflation problem, making what economists say is transitory right now but could become a permanent problem if they continue with this pace of spending. neil? neil: all right. got it. thank you very much, hillary. the bigger issue here is w

limit may be could boost spending mark zandi of moody's analytics sees adding 6.5 million jobs the penn wharton difficult to quantify how much they add and of course over what period of time. even in today's world, $1 trillion is a lot of money if well spent, i'll repeat that, if well spent could have a positive impact. andrew >> i know you don't like to opine, steve, but i'm going to ask you to opine do you believe that this will be well spent to answer your own question >> look, i think what the deal is with government spending is we always build in an idea that it will be spent ineinefficient. where would the private sector build those roads? they would build those roads where they're profitable whereas the government decides to build the roads where they serve people that are under served government spending is always a tradeoff between efficiency and equity i don't mean the wayhe o'leary thinks of equity delta can have a line for first class passengers but not the dmv. look, in general we've under invested in that regard. andrew, go ahead sorry. >> the other question i was going to ask you

good question, penn wharton budgeting model shows it adds $351 billion in deficit spending and has noe fuse for everything you were talking about with peter that 3 1/2 trillion of additional spending on the democrats priorities, the human infrastructure. stuart: got it. the real danger is the 3 1/2 trillion dollar deal. that is the danger of inflation, that one right there. tough, isn't it? economists say the infrastructure bill's boost to the economy will be short term. can you get into that one? lauren: it is the same idea. if you look at the new spending in this bill which is about $550 billion that would spread out, it is not immediate, spreads out over five to 10 years and prediction from goldman sachs it will add just .2 of a percentage point in gdp next year. we spent so much on the economy which really invigorated growth. this one, less spending spread out is not expected to do the same. stuart: what a mess, following it exceptionally difficult. >> here we are. stuart: thanks, lauren. joe rogan says, vaccine passports are quote, one step closer to dictatorship. watch this. >>

the penn-wharton model says this bill will reduce government debt. a prediction not to be taken lightly. michael strain of the american enterprise institute, a respective conservative think tank, has said these investments in hard infrastructure will ease the pressure on inflation rather than contributing to inflation. in other words, this investment in infrastructure will result in tremendous economic growth, growth that some of our budgetary bean counters are not willing to account for. now, it is important to make this point emphatically. this legislation involving hard infrastructure, which i support, stands in sharp contrast to the democrats' forthcoming bill which will certainly not gain even one republican vote and which the 50 democrats in the senate and a slim majority in the house hope to pass with only democrat votes. they say their bill will be infrastructure part the two, but a momentary glance at what they are proposing should dispel any notion that they are bill counts as real infrastructure. i will say it clearly and for the record --

as an example, the university of penn's penn-wharton budget model estimates this legislation would actually add $351 billion in deficit spending, an even higher total than the c.b.o. estimate. the point is even using these scorekeeping advantages, the c.b.o. has made it clear, this bill isn't paid for. i understand why the democratic leadership kept the c.b.o. score under wraps until thursday. it showed that the bill fell far short of ambitions. the c.b.o. says that it misses the mark of being paid for by a cool quarter of a trillion dollars. as an aside, i found it incredible that despite or perhaps because of getting this news on thursday afternoon, democrats tried to accelerate the passage of this bill later that same day instead of going through the normal multiday process for debating and enacting a bill they tried to rush it through in the middle of the night. i objected to accelerating this process through on thursday because the senate must carefully consider what it's doing. now the proponents of this bill claim that the c.b.o.'s analysis is wrong. no matter how much explaining the