it's interesting our friends are saying on the other side simpson-bowles, simpson-bowles. we had a vote in this committee and there were members of this committee who were on simpson-bowles who voted against it. we had a vote in this committee that talked about just the structure, not even necessarily the details of simpson-bowles. a lot of republicans voted against. you could not get one republican on the other side to raise their hand and say, yes, i would be for some tax increase on the wealthiest 2%, 1%, .5 of 1%. you couldn't get one to raise their hand. >> in thousands. in the is that the you got some. >> exactly. that's the holdup. that's where the compromise would come in. we're saying -- >> would you yield, mr. ryan? >> happy to yield. >> house democrats voted against simpson-bowles as well. the speaker of the house opposed simpson leader. the leader, and put out alternatives in place of it. >> i agree with you, mr. chairman i. i'm not the one sitting here blaming the administration for not adopting simpson-bowles. i voted for the amendment in committee, it was me

a few differences on simpso simpson-bowles. it has a social security package that weighted to -- we're very close, on the tax side we're very close, we go deeper on discretionary spending, on nondefense than simpson-bowles propos proposed. so we're actually very close on broad strategy to simpson-bowles with those two exceptions and the proposals we made last april and last september. we show you how close we have come to the basic context. where you guys are apart from simpson-bowles is two things. one, they have much higher defense levels than you, and they have much lower revenues, and that's the difference. if we can use that as a start for negotiations, then we're in a good position. >> there was another comment earlier regarding small businesses. and i think you were attempting to define what small businesses were and also trying to indicate where the

that's slightly lower than where they ends up in simpson/bowles. higher than you're going to get through current law. 1% gdp higher. i think in your framework last year you showed revenues rising to 19% of gdp. >> right. >> although, you don't necessarily xpris explicitly em rate reform. i think the two main differences between how we think about this today, we have to test this when we start to get serious about it, is a explicit commitment you need from both sides. it is part of a balanced plan, need tax reform that is going to raise 1% in additional revenues. and one other difference. you have to ask yourself, how do you want to allocate that burden? in simpson/bowles, rivlin/domenici and we would take the same approach is you're going to have to have infeeffec tax rates. you have to have the effective tax rates go up modestly. we think they should go up only for those top 2% of americans. >> let me end you because time is cutting out. i want to be -- he's got to go to a signing thing. i want you to go to the signing thing. that's not what you'r

and i also hear a lot of talk about simpson bowles, which i support, but you know what? this administration walked away from it. >> well, there's a lot of lines and let me try to respond and i will do it quickly, mr. chairman. first of all, i'm honored to be in this job and i'm honored to serve this president and honored to present this budget. on oco, i made the points, i'll repeat them. it closes the back door. i think we all agree that cbo is our referee cbo scores it as to savings ziemt what back door? >> the back door for discretionary spending. second, on deficits, i don't think you want to look at this in nominal dollars. no one thinks a dollar today is worth a dollar tomorrow. so i would rather have the dollar today than tomorrow. let's pivot to gdp. >> no one cares about that. they care about what the dollar amount is that you are creating deficits. >> at the end of the day -- >> the constituents talk to me don't say, as a percentage of gdp what is our debt going to be in den years? >> as a percentage of gdp -- >> how much are we spending and how much are we goi

the simpson-bowles proposal takes revenue to 20.6% and hen the president's budget has less revenue of a percent of gdp at the end of the window. the point here is that, this is a balanced approach which doesn't even raise as much revenue as we did during the clinton years when the economy was booming or in the bipartisan simpson-bowles proposals. here is what i'm going to ask of you, layout clearly why it's important to day a balanced approach and deal with the revenue side of the equation as well as the cutting side of the equation and what the consequences are for middle income americas and all americans. if you do not take a balanced approach, if you try to deal with the deficit issue the way the republican colleagues have suggested which is without taking one penny of deficit reductions from closing tax breaks. >> i think, first of all, you mentioned discretionary spending, this budget takes discretionary spending down to 5% of gdp, so we are making very, very hard choices in achieving that. the balanced approach of course which is at the center of the president's plan has been at

and i alsoso hear a lot of talk about simpson-bowles which i support. but you know what, this ation administration walked away from it. >> t.well, there's a lot. l let me try to respond. respond i know i will do it quickly, mrm chairman. first of all, i'm honored to bef in the job, and honored to serve this president and honored to present this budget. ma i've made the points, i'll repeat them, it closes the back door. i think we all agree cbo is our referee -- >> what that -- >> as to the deficit, more discretionary spending, second on deficits, i don't think you want to look at this in nominal dollars. no one thinks a dollar today isr worth a dollar tomorrow. so i'd rather have the dollar h today than tomorrow. let's pivot to gdp and percent a of gdp. >> no one cares about that, theg care what the dollar amount -- e >> at thefi end of the day. >> the me, as a percentage of gdp whate is our debt going to be in ten s years. they say, how much are we spending and how much are we going into debt? gree >> if you -- >> this plan is greece's plan. >> let him

. >> house democrats voesed against simpson-bowles. >> put out alternatives in place of it. >> i agree with you, but i'm not the one sitting here blaming the administration for not adopting simpson-bowles. i remember exactly. and so the point is there's accusations being made against the administration when the very members of this committee who had voted against simpson-bowles and the reason is we can't get a republican to say they would raise taxes on warren buffett. we have this debate, we have all this nostalgia for ronald reagan. so i had to do some home work. tax increase by ronald reagan, highway revenue act of 1982, tax increase by ronald reagan. social security of 1983 tax increase by ronald reagan. deficit reduction act of 1984, tax increase by ronald reagan. on the budget reconciliation act of 1985. omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1987. continuing resolution of 1988, tax increase by ronald reagan. which we now look back and say that was a fairly responsible thing to do. and to think of this man, they have this big picture of ronald reagan, to think of him running in a r

we've discussed simpson-bowles.n-bowles is one f the most logical, common sense approaches for dealing with this deficit that we've seen and a nice piece of work. it's disheartening washington has not been able to coalesce around this particular idea, this particular concept, plan, if you will. it is a place where it seems like both sides ought to be able to meet, it addresses the deficit from a rational standpoint. from our standpoint, it's uncertainty, and if you think about a business like thurz invests $20 billion a year, more than any company will invest in the united states. what are the things that influence that investment, and from our standpoint, taxes on investment are really important and if you want more of something, if you want more investment, you need to tax it less and we're in a situation where the taxes on investment, dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate profit taxes, all in the air. it causes a lot of uncertainty in terms of how you play in your capital investment, in terms of how you

i know a lot of the principles of simpson-bowles are things he supports., but i know that the president has refused to endorse it, and he's the with unthat created. but it is still out there, bob. a lot of us think that that is the eventual blueprint that we have to follow, and we have to do something. you know, these are crazy times. >> senator, i want to go back to something you said about taking words out of context and phrases out of context and i agree with you 100% but it seems to go both ways and i'm curious why the senior leadership in washington doesn't give a bear hug to a gingrich or to someone in the party and say you know what? we're not doing this, this time. >> well, look, primaries are tough. i think the things that one aspect that's changed since 2008 or any other time is the prominence of the debates now. we used to have debates but that was just one part of the whole political campaign. now it seems to be the defining moments. now whether that's good or bad is hard to say but it certainly increases the volatility of the race. so in my vi

he has quietly put forward simpson/bowles. would you agree with that?> i have not read the article. i would say this. both of them i know. they are high-grade people. one is a republican and one a democrat. they disagree on some things. you won't find people of greater integrity. they are smart. they work, i don't know, for 10 or 11 months. they compromise. they have people with diverse viewpoints as tom coburn of oklahoma who is a very high-grade guy but has different views than dick durbin who is high-grade guy from illinois. they got them to sign on. now having put that effort forth, they came up with a plan. i would like to see that lan voted on. what was the reason for sending them out to beat each other's heads for 10 or 11 months? they got 11 is out of 18 signatures. i understand that simpson and bowles are actually taking recommendations and crafting it into a legislative bill. i heard that a month ago. i don't know for certain that's true. i would hope that that bill just gets presented. bring it up next month. let's see how congress feels abou

the president did acknowledge this was the problem because he had the bowles-simpson commission take a look at this. they actually had bolden titlement reforms in there, the documents, entitlements of truth. did the president adopt any of those in this document we're looking at? >> i'm glad you raised that. point out we're much closer to the broad strategy in simpson-bowles than what people refer to commonly as the republican budget. if you look, for example -- maybe one exception in the sense that neither the republican budget nor our budget provides a detailed social security reform plan. but if you look at the broad balance of spending and tax cuts, we're much closer to simpson-bowles than is the republican budget. >> i'm going to reclaim my time. i only have 48 seconds left here. we did not see bold measures in this budget reform because what i have read in there and what i've seen is the way that this administration determines that we should balance this budget at this point in time with the medicare is on the backs of our providers. >> we are proposing $370 billion roughly, you

i also hear a lot of talk about simpson bowles, which i support, but you know what? this administration walk ad way from it. >> there's a lot of the once. let me try to respond and i will do it quickly, mr. chairman. first of all, i'm honored to be in the job and i'm honored to serve this president and honored to present this budget. on oco, i've made the points, it closes the back door. i think we all agree cbo is our referee -- >> what back door are you talking about? >> the deficit. the back door to more discretionary spending. second, on deficits, i don't think you want to look at this in nominal dollars. no one thinks a dollar today is worth a dollar tomorrow. i'd rather have the dollar today than tomorrow. let's pivot to gdp -- >> nobody cares about that, they care about the dollar amount is that you are creating in deficit spending. constituents don't say, as a percentage of gdp, what is our debt going to be in ten years? they say, how much are we spending, how much are we going in debt, are we goinging greece? this plan is greece's plan. >> let him answer. >>

let's take simpson-bowles. let's sit down, let's figure it out, everybody gives a little. we move on. i think even if the answer is half bad, we'll understand the environment we're in and you'll see a lot of investment begin to happen. >> do you actually fear a whip saw because of political leadership? in other words, you fear that there's enough distinction between the parties that if mitt romney becomes the president, that you could have such change that you want to keep some of that cash rather than invest it? >> no. well, i don't fear a whip saw. i think that there will be, in all likelihood, something after the election. it's ridiculous we have to wait that long. but after the election, president obama, point some reasonable solutions will be promulgated. that's my hope and my belief, and it just takes that time, and it's too bad with the jerry mander districts, cnn, nobody stays at home to talk about anything. that dynamic is killing us right now as a country. we have to have a cathartic experience. >> what does it take for leaders to lead and actually use that leade

it's election night, but look, bowles-simpson and simpson bowles will be the great compromise deal of our time. one way or another, some derivative form of this or another will get done and if it can't get done under this president, i know you're a democrat and i know you'll support obama, if it can't be done under obama is has to be done under romney the whole country knows and yet, and yet, and yet it never gets done. >> why not do it this spring. why would we saddle whether it's president obama or the republican president, the first thing out of the box next year for the president has to raise the debt ceiling their 3 trillion. why not do our job and put that plan in place this year. >> we need republican and democrat leadership on this issue and this is the perfect time to do it and it makes it much more difficult with the divided senate for there to be this political firing that goes back and forth with one side blaming the other for doing things such as entitlement reform that need to be addressed. the politics is much better in a divided government than the moment in which you

i have simpson-bowles too much these days and because jeff immelt mentioned it again. >> simpson-bowles, dominici, they are kind of similar. it's fewer brackets and lowering the rates and broaden the base. >> and what i thought was interesting about all those efforts was they talked about the notion of cut and invest. but as we're reforming the tax code so that we can be more competitive as a general proposition, we are also selecting those kind of investments whether they're advanced r & d, whether they are skilled workers and we'll talk about 10,000 engineers, you know, at a particular period of time, if you think about tax reform from the state and local level, and listening to the national conversation, is it just about the tax code itself or does it also include some of the investment imperatives that we need to make at all levels? who wants to take that? >> well, our key for growth and when you take a look at louisville over the last 18 months, between ford motor company and ge, we have over $2 billion of investment into the community and 4500 new jobs. so that's big for any city,

our friends on the other side are saying on the other side, simpson-bowles simpson-bowles -- we had ate in this committee that talked about the structure, not even necessarily the details and a lot of the republicans voted against it. you could not get one republican on the other side to say i would be for some tax increase on the wealthiest 2% or 1%. you could not get one of them to raise and and say they were for it. that is the hold up. that's where the compromise would come in. >> would you yield? house democrats voted against it as well. >> i agree with you. not the one blaming the administration for not adopting simpson-bowles. i remember exactly. the point is there are accusations being made against the administration when there are members of this committee who voted against it then turned around and blame the administration for not adopting it. the reason is because we cannot get a republican to said it would raise taxes on warren buffett. that is the bottom line. that is what this all comes down to. we have this debate every time we have a major cabinet official. we get all

the simpson-bowles outline, there have been several proposals. why not put something on the table and say let's do this before the end of the year. let's do major tax reform and let's make it fairer, flatter and more effective. >> good question. maybe the most honest way to say that is that we took a run at trying to negotiate a framework like that with the republican leadership in the house over the course of the summer, as you know, at substantial political cost, and we found no basis for agreement on even the broad framework you said correctly was embraced by simpson-bowles and by the senate bipartisan committee, and without that willingness, without an indication by republican leadership, we're just trying to be realistic and what we're trying to do is trying to help make the case why reform is so important, why reform is a better way to get there than just adding more -- but just realistically given the experience we had over the last year, we don't see the basis yet. maybe it will come. without it, we're not going to get the changes in heal

a lot of the principles that you found in the simpson-bowles recommendations, and all of them are consistentith the idea of making sure that the tax code is flatter, fairer, broaden the base in order to get economic development. so i think as part of this campaign, as we progress through it, you're going see a lot more proposals from the governor related to -- on that particular topic. >> all right, thank you. kevin madden, we appreciate it as always. >>> now florida side, gop primary is not over yet. it may be basically over, but the hand has to play out. and newt gingrich had a nonresponse to romney's win. by the way, this is really weird. newt gingrich didn't bother to congratulate governor romney. so it's going to be a heated and competitive race. now romney says it could be a good thing that it's a heated and competitive race. take a listen. >> primary contests are not easy. and they're not supposed to be. as this primary unfolds, our opponents in the other party have been watching. and they like to comfort themselves with the thought that a competitive campaign will leave us divided an

you say there's some consensus about simpson bowles. you yourself had a tax reform plan for the super committee. you had democratic support, as i recall, but let me just ask you, is there any common ground for reform? for entitlement reform, particularly medicare and for tax reform that might do a lot of things and it might raise revenues by getting rid of deduction, but it might grow the economy. in other words, is there any common ground among democrats and republicans in your upper chamber? >> you know, i think there is some. there certainly is on the corporate tax side an acknowledgement that we need to simplify that tax code and lower the rates on the corporate side. there's stronger consensus there. on the individual side, unfortunately, it's become politicized. the president is trying to divide americans and he's trying to incite resentment. any argument to sechl li phi the code and reduce deductions and lower marginal rate, they just can't go there because the president has dragged them so far to the left. it's discouraging, lar

simpson commission. that was bowles, that's it. >> 8 out of the 14 supported it. >> the rules and the commission was 12 of 16. they didn't. >> they didn't get the super majority they need but the key thing is moderate centrist democrats still understand the lesson of 1986 that lower tax rates are very important for competitiveness and growth and obama has just staked out i guess we'll call it's french position -- >> president bush came in, lowered tax rates, and the economy went down the tubes. bill clinton raised tax rates and we had eight years of good growth. i'm not going to say that was the reason. but the story doesn't fit. >> but here's where i'll give you a deal, dean. i'll go back to bill clinton's tax rates if in exchange you agree that we go back to the federal government only spending 18.2% of gdp if we get rid of t.a.r.p., if we get rid of sarbanes-oxley. >> we have to get rid of t.a.r.p. but unless you can make people grow younger, i don't see how you can do 18.2. i could probably pick some games for you.

as you know, i'm sure i served on the president's commission on the bowles-simpson commission. that adodopted the same two-ste approach in 2010. we agreed in the commission report that we would delay the caps on spending and the spending restraints for a year or two to allow for the stimulus on the impact on the economy that was claimed to be needed. the concern i have that it's now time to prepare the 2012 budget. we still hear that it's not time yet for us to begin the austerity part, but we still need to engage in the spending side. we are not there. my question rhetorically, when will we ever get to step two? the question i want to ask you is about this budget. i have seen a lot of budgets in congress. i analyzed a lot of congressional budgets. one of the biggest problems i think we have that we overlook every year is that you have a budget in this case, a ten-year budget, that makes all kinds of proposals over a ten-year period of time, but it is only the first year of the budget that really counts. it is only the first year of the budget that congress will operate from in

look at the simpson-bowles. it is bipartisan. >>neil: but it was bipartisanly dumped on.uest: that is how all of this starts and the president has to use muscle to move it through the legislative process. >>neil: but he didn't. >>guest: that was a mistake. here is what sink such -- simpson-bowles said in the tax code we have $1.1 trillion in nonsense, loopholes benefiting 7 percent of the population, year in and year out, and it keeps the lobbyists in business and there is no oversight. >>neil: would you have unilateral withdrawal, take the subsidies arm for oil but unlike the president's budget take them away for the green energy technologies or do you think there is a place federal government protection? >>guest: well, all subsidies in today's world ought to be gone. per. everyone loses. corporate welfare, gone. is there a role for bake -- basic research at national institutes of heart and the energy department? and the defense department, basic research? of course. but in terms of taking those and subsidizing their application not marketplace, no how no way. >>neil: yo

. >> what about the idea of a potential simpson-bowles redo. it because i do not think it's necessarily going to come from congress or the administration or anybody there. but there's a movement afoot among ceos and people in the country who are trying to push it and saying you cannot wait any longer. if it's something that comes from the people it could put pressure on people in congress. >> with the payroll tax, i get my deals mixed up -- >> there was to budget deal. >> thank you. what the payroll tax deal shows that the dynamics have shifting in the other dprekz and that while some polls are showing that independents are moved by the deficit argument of course as you are looking at district by district the conversation is turning to jobs. >> they did not pay for the payroll tax cut, it's amazing, you could not have done this a year ago. which in turn could lead you to believe that maybe there's a bit of transportation bill that could be there because people want to pork in their strict. but nothing along the lines of $4 trillion in deficit r

immelt urged congress and the white house today to adopt a budget plan along the lines of the simpson-bowles definite reduction package. he spoke at the start of a week-long conference hoefted by ge on u.s. manufacturing and competitiveness. following his remarks, mr. i'm meant joins a panel of corporate executives for a discussion of the role of the government on the economy. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> describing ideas and really talking about ways to create jobs and i think it's going to be a great week and a lot to be shared. if you would have read last month's harvard business review, roughly 75% ofhe surveyed think that america's competitiveness is going to decline over the next three years. i'd have to say that is in contrast to what we see, to what i see. i would go beyond that to say i think on a relevant basis i think american competitiveness is as strong today as i've seen in a generation. what i'm going to go through is just frame some of the things that are working and we've got a series of workshops and panels over the next few days to discuss again the best practices an

-- simpson-bowles? >> i am assuming. >> i think there was pushed back in the right way. the commission was focused on cuts and not investments. the great deficit in this country is the investment deficit, the investment in people and infrastructure. there were attempts to revive it. it was a super committee proposal. i think it is a good thing the super committee failed to reach an agreement. we will see where that goes. it was not a fair deal. there was so little revenue and so much padding. -- so much cutting. someone was writing the other day that the anti-tax mania is at an all-time low. reagan was willing to raise taxes. it shows how extreme. someone said the of the grover norquist may be the most powerful person in america. the new pledge he has held canada is to. he has held candidates -- the new pledge he has held the new candidates to is keeping millions -- it has a role to play in a country rich in the land grant colleges, highways, bridges. i understand the bridge out here is about to be built. i am all for infrastructure. >> obama in a way has to be the lucki

let's take simpson-bowles, let's sit down, let's figure it out.rybody gives a little and we move on. i think even if the answer is have that we will understand the environment we're in, and you see a lot of investing in. [inaudible] in other words, you fear that there is enough distinction between the parties that if mitt romney becomes the president that you could have such change that you want to keep some of that cash rather than invest it and? >> no. no. well, i don't fear. i think it would be in all likelihood something after the election, it's ridiculous we have to wait that long, but after the election president obama, republican-controlled house and senate, i think at that point some reasonable solutions will be promulgated. that's my hope and my belief your and it just takes that time, and it's too bad with the gerrymandered districts, fox news, cnn, no one stays in washington on the weekend talks about. you are penalized if you compromise. you losing your home district. that dynamic is just killing us right now as a country. we've got to

the end of the decade which is lower than the revenue forecast implied from the policies in the simpson-bowles plan to which many of you have shown affection. >> a fifth of the gdp. slightly higher, it's been about 18% to 20%. if you agree with that figure -- >> we proposed spending to about 22% of gdp. and the reason why it's that high is americans are retiring. now -- so we can't suspend the reality of people retiring and because we give people retirement security and health care, medicare and social security, that causes that rise. >> mr. langford? >> thank you. i do agree with you, by the way, this is a long look issue. a lot of people are retiring, we have to make sure that medicare is there, that -- this can't be something immediate, we're going to solve it tomorrow. my concern is and we talked about in from last year, the term primary balance and sust n sustainable gets and deficits gives the clear impression that we never balance and we never plan to pay down principal, ever. i understand it's not like a mortgage. but its some concern to say if the whole focus of the administration is

all three candidates on the right side of the tax rate and indeed serious bipartisan people, simpson bowlesthey all want to go in this direction. obama is the outliar. >> okay, we have to take one more break. when we come back, our hits ♪ all right ♪ ♪ yeah ♪ ♪ can you feel it out there? ♪ ♪ you gotta lift yourself up ♪ ♪ that's right [ male announcer ] join the masters of style... even trimming, a close shave, and accurate edging... with the new gillette fusion proglide styler. ♪ [ male announcer ] new fusion proglide styler and clear shave gel from gillette. >> time now for our hits and misses of the week. dan, first to you. >> the first hit to the chicago school board, it might be a miracle. the chicago school board voted wednesday to close five schools, fire the teachers at ten schools and allow them to reapply and six schools are going to be turned over to the academy for urban school leadership, a nonprofit that's had a lot of success. this is a huge achievement for the rookie mayor rahm emanuel who was barack obama's former chief of staff and they did it over the opposition of the un

simpson bowls commitment says this is the most predictable crisis in the history of mankind and we're going down that path. >> this is a very sad day when the president of the united states fails to keep his promises to the american people once again and rather than -- we know the president said he would cut the deficit and a half in his first term in president. we know that's not going to happen. and henry reid is the only person that can put the budget on the floor. >> what you would like, but maybe you can put off and things that you would like to have and things that you really can't afford. that kind of disciplinary process, that every family, every small business undertakes in america. henry reid and the president's own political party have refused to do. i guess the worst part about the debt is not only looking a at the television and seeing what's happening over in greece now and what's happening in europe, but they're unsus tapeable debt. the in fact of the matter is, this $15 trillion debt has kept job creators on the sidelines because they don't know what the taxes are goin

all three candidates on the right side of the tax rate and indeed serious bipartisan people, simpson bowlesey all want to go in this direction. obama is the outliar. >> okay, we have to take one more break. when we come back, our hits and misses of the week. h pain, do you want fast relief? try bayer advanced aspirin. it has microparticles so it enters the bloodstream fast and rushes relief to the site of your tough pain. it's proven to relieve pain twice as fast as before. bayer advanced aspirin. the new spark card from capital one. spark miles gives me the most rewards of any small business credit card. the spark card earns double miles... so we really had to up our game. with spark, the boss earns double miles on every rchase, every day. that's setting the bar pretty high. owning my own business has never been more rewarding. coming through! [ male announcer ] introducing spark the small business credit cards from capital one. get more by choosing unlimited double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day. what's in your wallet? >> time now for our hits and misses of the week. d

the simpson's-bowles commission set $4 trillion in deficit reduction as their ten-year wind window. and they set something in that range. included in their recommendations was reducing discretionary spending by actually over a trillion dollars. as part of the budget control act we passed we cut discretionary spending by approximately $1 trillion, it seems reasonable and i think ordinary americans watching this proceeding would agree that you should be able to count the effort that we made already towards the $4 trillion, after all it was recommended we do it and we did it. that is a trillion dollars. we also, as you pointed out, put in place this mechanism to achieve another trillion dollars through a sequester, it has across the board cuts to defense and nondefense investments and what you proposed is another better, more balanced way o achieving that $1.2 trillion deficit reduction. just because it's built in that assumptions that this massive across the board cut that nobody in this room i think thinks is the best approach to doing that, just because you came up with a better way

otherwise known as the simpson-bowles commission. he will talk about his years in washington. a chance for you to weigh in and call him at 8:15 eastern time. on c-span radio, our listener line is open. is washington doing enough dealing with the deficit? that number is 202-626-7962. here's what some of you have been saying. >> i'm an independent voter. i'm calling from virginia. i was just listening to your radio program. you do a great job of covering the topics. the position to make this budget. they don't believe in money as an actual thing. they are talking about percentages of gdp. these numbers don't mean anything. they don't have a budget. they don't plan to make a budget. it is all just a relative ratio to these people. it is whatever they can get away with is what they will spend. the only way they will cut back on spending is if voters make it plain at the polls. if you go to vote them out, the next group comes in and they'll stop spending. otherwise, they will see it as a referendum to spend all your money and jack your taxes up. it's a difference between higher tax

. >> don't let this turn into a simpson-bowls where we go out and make recommendations and nobody pushes it forward. if you're going to push it forward, push it forward and come work with congress to get it done. secondly, along the lines of what mr. rogers was talking about, 50% of our electricity is row du produced by coal, 20% by nuclear power. when i look at the budget, it's a very small part of the electronics portfolio, and cuts in some areas that are producing the most electricity. i'm, frankly,

>> by the way, simpson bowles, they're very similar. there's three brackets, so it's fewer brackets, lower the rates. >> i thought what was interesting with all these, they talked about the notion of cut and invest. so as we're reforming the tax code so that we can be more competitive, the general proposition, we are also selecting those kind of investments, whether they're advanced r & d, whether they are skilled workers. we talked about 10,000 engineers in a particular period of time. so as you think about tax reform from the state and local level and listening to the national conversation, is it just about the tax code itself or does it also include some of the investment imperatives that we need to make at all levels? who wants to take that? >> our key toward growth, and when you take a look at louisville over the last 18 months between ford motor company and ge, you have over $2 billion of investment into the community and 4500 new jobs. that's big for any city anywhere in the world. and how that came about was the partnership betw

. >> don't let this turn into a simpson-bowls where we go out and make recommendations and nobody pushes it forward. if you're going to push it forward, push it forward and come work with congress to get it done. secondly, along the lines of what mr. rogers was talking about, 50% of our electricity is row du produced by coal, 20% by nuclear power. when i look at the budget, it's a very small part of the electronics portfolio, and cuts in some areas that are producing the most electricity. i'm, frankly, disappointed. where we've seen reductions in small modular reactors, this was the ground we were heading down, but we're seeing new direction in that arena and other things. it seems to me there is an agenda of trying to push green technology when, in fact, nuclear energy, i think, is green technology. it doesn't put hydrocarbons in the air. and if you're really going to address global climate change and hydrocarbons, you had better adopt nuclear energy, and it doesn't seem like we're doing that in this budget. this is the first time i've seen an entrenchment in this administration in adva

that really doesn't make sense, simpson-bowles, the only place we've had a bipartisan agreement around here more savings initially and more savings over time than the president's budget. but not the kind of abrupt cut that we see in the sequester. so i just say this to you. i hope that we don't conclude or it's not your testimony here today, that there's not another dime of savings to be derived in defense. i was just had an analyst briefing that was talking about the way we manage our our navy. and that we keep crews tied to ships. and that means when a ship is deployed, and it comes, or the crew comes back, the ship comes back. there's been analysis done that if we kept the ship deployed and shared crews, that we could derive significant savings. i don't know if that level of detail is something, mr. secretary, you've looked at, but i'd be very interested, do you believe or have you looked at the notion of having crews share ships, so that we wouldn't have to, when a crew returns, return the ship. >> mr. chairman, i'm not sure that is the case any more. because i think there was -- t

i don't want to take away from the great work that was done by senator simpson, by erskine bowles.he can down the road on health care. there was no structural reforms in medicare. there was simply frankly no dealing with the president's health care plan. which is a key division in washington. and so that in and of itself, i don't believe gets the job done. you know, to the extent it would help jump-start the process -- fine, bring it up for vote. until we deal with the key driver, which unfortunately simpson-bowles didn't, i'm afraid it just doesn't solve the problem. >> congressman hensarling, it's great seeing you this morning. >> thank you for having me. >>> oil backing off recent highs, but prices at the pump still affecting millions across the country, where oil and gasoline prices will be going, coming up just ahead. as we head to a break. take look at the futures right now. i love this song, by the way. dow would open up about 22 points higher. "squawk" coming back right after the break. >>> we're pack, oil closing lower over the past couple of days. but the crude reality re

simpson-bowles, that's why you had a commission. >> something else to watch.aw what happened in japan. japan is bankrupt. no one is talk about. gdp numbers out last night, their economy is in severe decline. there's just no children being born there. no one is going to be paying for the elderly. >> same thing with italy. you know, willie, you were talking about the budget and -- >> as you always do. >> he keeps bringing it up. >> you're going to have the president. he put his budget out. it's really talking past republicans. you've got democrats in the senate who are going to go another 1,000 days without having the courage to put out a budget and then you have the republicans in the house that are going to pass a budget that's going to talk right past the president. you're going to have these lobbies back and forth and nobody is going to get together. >> these are core questions. as cramer said, republicans said we won't do new taxes. $1.5 trillion of new taxes in the president's budget. he doesn't want to extend bush tax cuts any further. those are issues we

the end of the decade which is lower than the revenue forecast implied from the policies in the simpson-bowles plan for which many of you have showed so much affection. >> so about a fifth, a fifth of the gdp is appropriate. >> slightly higher than the historic average. >> right now we're a little below average, historically it's been about 18% to 20%. so it's not a revenue problem historically that we have, it's a spending problem if you agree with that figure or if you agree with your own figure, figure 12. >> we proposed to reduce spending to a little higher than 22% of gdp. the reason why it's that high is because americans are retiring. now, we can't suspend the reality of people retiring, and because we give medicare and social, that causes the spending levels to rise. >> i yield back. >> mr. lankford. >> thank you for being here, nice long day. you're almost done. i do agree with you, by the way. this is a long-look issue. we have a lot of people retiring right now. we have to make sure that safety net is there, make sure medicare is there, social security is there. a lot of the issues

although slightly less than the proposals in the simpson-bowles commission. focusing on the top 2% is a more fair and better way to achieve fiscal sustainability, better for the economy and better than the impact of an equivalent amount of cuts in things like benefits to middle income seniors or into infrastructure and defense spending. we propose tax reforms that raise revenues not because we think it's good politics for us or that any of us like to do it. we propose it because we do not believe it is possible to meet our national security needs to preserve a basic level of health care and retirement security to compete infecti ieffectively wie increase in revenues as part of a balanced plan. now, we illustrate in the budgets a range of specific tax changes that could be added on to the present tax system to raise the necessary amount of revenue. but we think the best approach to get there is through would be through comprehensive tax reform. we've outlined a general set of principles that will be designed to make the system more fair, more simple, better en

the question is how we do that, and i believe that bipartisan commission simpson-bowles provide the overall framework to the approach for doing that, if not every specific recommendation they make. so with that, dr. bernanke, again, thank you and your colleagues for your work. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you. chairman bernanke, the floor is yours. >> thank you. >> chir man ryan, ranking member van hollen and other members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to discuss my views on economic outlook, monetary policy and the challenges facing federal fiscal policymakers. over the past 2 1/2 years, u.s. economy has been gradually recovering from a deep recession. while conditions have certainly improved over this period, the pace of the recovery has been frustratingly slow. particularly from the perspective of the millions of workers who remain unemployed or underemployment. moreover, this sluggish expansion has left the economy vulnerable to shocks. indeed last year supply chain disruption stemming from the earthquake in japan, a surge in the prices of oil and other commoditie