we cannot spend our way to prosperity. we need to prioritize spending cuts. we need to find the spending cuts that will do the least harm and start there. that goes through an appropriations process that works. we've been doing omnibus bills around here for a long tiesm i have constituents who start coming in january and they want me to take a look at their program and add just a few dollars in there. and i have to tell them, you know, the last time i got to look at a line on the appropriationppropriations was e years ago. we just take one whole lurc lumf $is trillio$1 trillion and voltd down. we need to prioritize those cuts. i'll tell you how wyoming did it. wyoming was facin facing an 8% t they thought. 8% cut. we're talking about 2.3% for the federal government. if we compress is down to just a few months, we're talking about 5.3%. but the true amount of that sequestration was 2.3%. wyoming thought they were going to get hit for 8% because of mostly some of the regulations on energy that have reduced some of the energy production in i would wievment how d

votes in order to spend more than we have agreed to spend. --s legislation amazingly perhaps the house did not understand the significance of it. it is very significant. we have loaded three separate times to block this legislation in the last year or so, successfully. we want to stay with the commitment that we made to the american people to keep spending at a correct level. collings, there are a lot of problems with this bill. we should say to senator reid and the leadership here in the senate, the democratic leadership, that we must slow down and have a chance to have actual debate stop let's fix some of the problems. there are plenty of times to fix those problems and send the bill back to the house and pass it before the deadline of january 15. i think the chair -- i think the chair and i yield the floor. >> the senator from washington. >> we have lurched from one budget crisis to another. from one fiscal cliff to the next. when one countdown clock stopped, the next one got started. the uncertainty was devastating to our very fragile eco

the problem is spending. this deal raises spending at the end of the day. >> we are, we're very low. we did, we came up a little bit, not a whole lot. we're in a new era. there could be another bipartisan deal that could be more to your liking for deficit reduction. you and i both know, you will have to accept some tax releases. are you willing to get the debt off the backs. your kids? are you willing to compromise or whatever the word is with this president? >> this deal does not help the economy. we need a growing economy. we need less regulations and we haven't even talked about the president's health care plan. you have to roll back on something. >> i have to say that continuing with this sequester, this austerity budget which it is by any other term is the worst for the economy. it kills job growth. it kills investment. it is the poorest of economics. that's why we're not fully recovered. if congress would get out of the way, i think the economy would have fully recovered. >> i want to thank both of you

they do not know where they are spending their money and how effectively they are spending their money. you look at the major weapons systems, they do not know how to buy weapons systems. our high-risk list is unbelievable. we have a carrier -- nobody would believe what is going to cost, the gerald r ford. 35's that are way over budget. they are still going to cost two times or three times what they were projected to cost. incompetency because there is no adult in the room and no control of buying something before you know what you want. atneed to make real changes the pentagon. you have people who are authorizing this who do not want real changes. they like the status quo. ella onat are. -- twitter. i do not always agree with him but i know he would be a great president. any interest? frustration is high enough. it is time for me to go home before i get in real trouble. i have done and been where i am going to be. host: senator coburn's fourth wastebook. you can see that on his website, coburn.senate.gov. you can look through that report of about 100 different examples of waste and un

it still spends more than the amount of money we agreed to spend and it allowed us to contain spending. there were three different votes in the last year or so in which the senate was stopped from spending more than the budget control act limit required because 60 senators would not vote for it. there weren't 60 that would support waiving the budget, breaking the budget, spending above the budget. so that's the issue at stake. and i'm sure the spenders were deeply disappointed. they got over 50. and under this bill now, it only takes 50. they got over 50 but they didn't get 60. so they were not able to continue that spending. this agreement, this bill that's before us today would significantly weaken the ability of senators in this congress -- in this body to enforce the spending and revenue limits under our budget resolution and future budgets. the ryan-murray agreement that's before us today includes an egregious number of deficit-neutral reserve funds -- 57, to be exact -- operationally a reserve fund allows the chairman of the senate budget committee to adjust the spending limits i

to spend otherwise.ed cuts are rescinded. and then this deficit reduction, $2.3 billion a year. it is 0.3% of this past year's deficit. this is kind of embarrassing. >> i have been doing this for 30 years. and i'm kind of embarrassed to say that. so every time the congress wants to spend money, what they do is exactly what they have done here. they basically say that we will allow more spending than a couple of years. but then we will be really disappointed in our spending. and so this happens, half a decade or more from now. and i would bet you a dime to a dollar, the spending cuts are not going to happen. dennis: what you say? >> that's usually how it goes. there's other stuff in this budget as well. a lot of those messages are just poor examples. prisoners are now able to collect unemployment information and a budget conference you haven't had in four years, do you need that to make that happen? really? it doesn't address our debt and it actually pushes this down and we still have to address that big

we spend more, the new doctor spending on social care. when you look at the collective tide, we spend less than a lot of other countries. how do you divide health care? wants a health care system, how do we think about it? shouldn't just be for heart attacks? should be for the population measures? how do we think about this? >> i would like to address the. it's an interesting question and giving many people run hospitals and many physicians in the united states probably do see their job as fundamentally medicine, medical care, i have medical treatment. but we also to look at who is paying for our medical care system. 50% of the revenue of the hospital typically, even more than that is paid for by medicare and medicaid. that's the public dollar. the question has to be then what is that public dollar by? should be buying health are should only be? the two are very different i think. when we visited of the country, there's a different conception of health in other countries. were held i think it's broadly understood as medicine is one input

spending, it doesn't deal with mandatory spending. mr. president, we've taken steps to move in this direction. the passage of the affordable care act puts in place a manner in which we can deal with health care costs by reducing the growth rate of health care expenditures by dealing with the readmissions to hospitals, by managing complicated illnesses, duplicate tests, getting people out of the emergency room into our clinics and into preventive care, having seniors take advantage of preventive health care because they don't have to pay a co-payment they couldn't afford. these are ways that we improve what we call the delivery system of health care in america where you bring down the cost of health care. that's the best way to bring down the mandatory spending accounts of medicare and medicaid, reduce health care costs. we need to do more of that. we need to get down the cost of our mandatory spending in this country, and we could have done more in this budget agreement did not deal with that. and then there's the issue of revenue. i'

we spend an enormous amount op the medical side and don't spend as much as other countries on services that really support the more fundamental determinants of health. that results in an expensive system that does not really confer the health we deserve. >> and why? why have we evolved in this way? why is scandinavia, as you talk about in the book, look so different? >> i think what we found is there's a strong historical press in the united states for letting the system grow organically. health care in the u.s., as it did in many places began as a cottage industry. doctors were entrepreneurs, put a plaque outside the house saying, i'm open for business. we have continued down that path of an entrepreneurial free market health care system because we feel that's the american way to approach the system. scaped knave ya really movedded, and much of europe moved in the beginning of the 20th century for a more kind of centralized and budgeted system where they decided that health care was not something in the market but socially good they wanted to ensure for people, and i think those are d

we spend plenty on money and number two is k-12 education. we are not the top 25, we are not the top 25 in k-12 education outcomes so it is not a matter of money you need to reengineer the system and i have a number of ideas about how to do that. >> maybe we will come back to that but there's a couple other bases i want to touch before i turn it over. under this broad entitlement reform, medicare is critical as you say. we also have social security. the other interesting chapter i think on what we should do to fix the social security system, say a little bit about that. >> in the scheme of things that should be easy. in the basketball and now the g8 should be a layup. you can miss the layup but on the other hand, with medicare and health care reform it is a three-point play for the opponent's basket. we have to dribble a little bit and take a few shots before we will put some points on the board. with social security we would have had competence in 1999 but for the blue dress incident. and it's not just a matter of what the reform ought to be

how much more do you want to spend? is there any limit to your spending desires? >> sean, can i answer that for a second? i'm not subscribing to juan, but in congress this progressive mindset, it could be $17 trillion, it could be $27 trillion, it could be 1$100 trillion, there literally is no answer to your question. it's whatever it takes and no end game ever. >> reagan raised the question in this. it's very simple. is there a limit to the percentage of people's earnings which you say that's too much? i've asked you this question. you never gave me an answer. out of every dollar. >> i will answer you. >> what is it? >> i think, for me, it's like 35, 40%. i would stop. let me remind you. >> that's only -- >> what about -- >> in new york you pay another 10 cents, state tax, state income tax, county tax, property tax, sales tax, hidden tax. out of every dollar somebody makes what's the maximum that should go to government, state, local, federal, everywhere -- >> [ talking over each other ] >> what, juan? >> sean lives in a high tax area. you have to understand sean

it will be a number that congress can spend on discretionary spending. this well, for the first time in several years, allow the appropriations committee to do the job it was intended to do. our operators have previously been forced to make spending decisions without a top line number. and through continuing resolutions, they have no information and no guidance from congress. it is no wonder that are spending is out of control. when congress approaches the appropriations process to regular order, and not through last-minute continuing resolutions, this agreement makes that process more likely. the budget committee chairman has also made a good-faith effort to attack the real problems on her budget i cutting money for mandatory programs rather than searching for more discretionary cuts. in their agreement, they took note of how often the federal government is giving special treatment to certain groups. they have taken efforts to curb that. well many outside group attack these reforms, they are representative of the types of reforms that will have to be in

whichy 15 is the date by the current temporary spending ends. in early february, the debt ceiling. >> right. they got the package through the senate. cap to pass this one more time in january when congress on -- they have to pass this one more time in january when congress comes back. they need to keep funding for the government or it would shut down again. they have got to take this agreement and put it into the spending bills. looking ahead, is this a new era in congress? a cycle of lurching from crisis to crisis come to a close? the majority is still out on that. raising that nation possible limit has been a difficult issue. it is uncertain if that will happen again. they have every seven to raise that limit. more than $17 trillion in debt right now. that is something not a lot of people want to do. they also don't want to default on accrued bills that the nation needs to pay. the treasury department could probably keep thing the bills and stretch that out a bit. i think that will be the next --dle and when that arrives we will see how they h

the smartest way to cut spending. last year, republicans passed two bills that would have replaced the sequester cuts. this bill before us is a reflection of our priority to replace the sequester with permanent savings that will responsibly reduce our deficit. this legislation will allow congress to concentrate on appropriating taxpayer funds to our country's highest priorities. let's stand together and show the american people that we are focused on reining washington's spending habits while growing our economy. i want to thank the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, for his perseverance in his quest to rein the wasteful spending to work towards balancing our budget. i want to thank him for his tenacity in the negotiations that he had with senator murray to arisk at this deal. i thank him and his entire committee for their hard work. this is a bipartisan budget agreement, one that has not been frequently seen in terms of bipartisan agreement on this floor. and i urge my colleagues in the house to support this

, for people who can either spend on their heating or they can spend it on food. so during this time when they are able to get food stamps, because others can stimulate the local economy more so. and so even if you didn't care about public health, the net result is actually a deficit reduction. and i will say that it is, however, it is important to recognize that it's difficult to find funding and medicaid and other programs are classic programs where you have less of a tax during the recessionary time because more people are employed. so how will you find the safety nets when you need money for them the most? >> you can do the deficit spending, but is there a better way? and some of us have been working on this international initiative where the goal is to find the programs that we need an and find the novel funding and discourage the kind of things like this as well. so we all know that this led to the recession. the very few participate in these investments and i doubt that any of you went and bought a lot of mortgage-backed securities and so on. so the idea to

reasons for its own collapse these very huge spending disproportionate spending on both military and intelligence so i wonder why aren't the intelligence agencies being asked to cut the fat at the time when everybody else is subjected to susteren symmachus we have cut intelligence spending as the united states has adjusted to the fiscal realities that we have in the united states but i think it's been money very well spent i don't think it's been exorbitant whatsoever we are a big country like russia where we have a global intelligence service because we have interests all over the world we have more threats you know i think it's interesting it might be interesting for your viewers you know the way the united states sees intelligence is different than when we saw it in the cold war while the soviet union and the united states were sort of pitted against each other in a sense it was an easier intelligence mission because russia is a very large of the soviet union was a very large nation state within embassies and armaments in the rest where as today's threats are stateless internation

government spends. a good idea to you? >> not at a time the deposit is not spending money and it's hurting our ability to recover from a very deep recession. ronald reagan, in that clip you played, sean, talked about how deficits impact inflation and drive up inflation. we don't have inflation right now. >> we have a fed pumping $85 billion a month to prop up our economy. when they stop feeding that beast, what do you think will happen? >> 17 trillion dollars debt and economy very sick, unemployment rate now has sustained 7 plus. we know, sean and juan, unemployment is really 10-12%. i talk about this in my book, not just the economic, the whole dependence culture and 50 million people on food stamps, this whole thing that dependence is cool again. our economy is sick and culture is sick, in my view. >> also 90 trillion in unfunded liable. juan, you're saying eag though we have trillion dollar deficit, 7 trillion plus new obama debt, you're saying that's not enough, we can still continue to rob future g

and still spend, i think this is just one more support to continue to spend through 2014.nd reason for the fed to move. >> why wouldn't the fed just say it is great they are putting back this spending but we will continue with these bond purchases. >> well, i think the fed -- certainly the one thing to take into mind, if they start to ease off the podal it is not necessarily tightening. maybe they will ease it down to 80 or 75. but they are still putting the gas on the pedal. it is like driving on the interstate, they are now going about 65-miles an hour, now they will be going on the exit ramp, but they are still driving. >> and yet we know a lot of people love that when our economy is driving that fast, what might this do to stock port fold owes in terms of what they will see? >> certainly the fed is very clear, that they are economies communicating what they are wanting. the fed was very well aware of that, i think there will be a little bit more of a learning curb. and when they do move, when the fed does move, whether it's december or january, there will be an adjustm

apple spending has come down.pany predicts in the next year they are going to increase that spending from 8 billion in the last fiscal year to over 10 billion next year. >> it looks like samsung has gone up. >> that's exactly the way you want to do this. apple has gone from one cluster to another. you can see they're spending has been above google and microsoft. google and microsoft were not in the device business until recently. we do see a rise in microsoft and google. they are starting to pop more into manufacturing. >> what about advertising spending. samsung has been getting a lot of attention for its ads. the next ring wing is already here -- the next big thing is already here. how does it compare? >> we can look at the history. in 2009, samsung was a large spender. they have that business. they were certainly one of the larger pc makers. they are a little less than samsung. if we go forward, there was rising spending amongst all the players. the largest growth was from samsung, which accelerated to where th

capita spending. it is worth noting that medicare consumed 15% of the total budget and in 2011 come the first of the baby boomers hit the medicare program. medicare spending is projected to double by 2022. and so while we typically talk about differences in this town come out today we will be talking about areas of consensus and health care costs consensus. there have been a number of major proposals in the area of health care costs and the commonwealth are part of this common ground. rituals set the stage for us by framing areas identified by commonwealth. and this includes the cost containment proposals. >> thank you so much, maryland. thank you to the alliance for health care reform. and thank you for joining us to talk about health care costs. and as maryland said, we all understand the imperative at the federal and state level, as well as employers and households and other individuals go. health care costs are up to about $3 trillion in terms of national health expenditures and are expected to ri

some of the spending down. you have democrats that are offended by the magnitude of the s.n.a.p. program, or food stamps. is this scenario where this kind of murray-ryan compromise can work out the differences? or will they return to some of the deadlock? >> i want to strongly agree with marty on this point. it is something that is not understood by most people, once you have the number, once you have the budget number that the appropriators can work with, once you determine how big the pie is going to be, it gets a lot easier to work out how big each slice is going to be. once you work out how much the ag committee gets to work with, then it becomes a much easier to work out the details of the budget. i agree with both of these gentlemen. once they have a master agreement that they know will pass the house and senate and there is the will of the leadership of the house and senate to pass appropriation bills in regular order, all of this becomes a whole lot easier. it also becomes harder for whichever side of t

congress will set the spending priorities and write the spending bills. that's one of the things we get. you and i agree. >> i know where your heart is. we are really coming to a critical point in our history. this country has had to face bankruptcy. we are robbing our kids and grandkids blind. this budget brings us to $25 trillion in debt. to me that's a crisis. >> i'm not going to pretend this budget with solves our fiscal problems. it doesn't. the budget we pass in the house in the spring does solve our fiscal problems. in this divided government you won't get that. we are trying to make the divided government work and get the democrats to drop tax increases and cut spendings which is what this does do. it's a good precedent, a step in the right direction. we are reducing the deficit. >> will it pass? >> it will. >> thanks for being with us. >> thanks, sean. >> up next tonight on "hannity." >> knowing what you know te'o would have started the launch october 1. >> i would have done a smaller lauchbl wi launch with fewer people. >> kathleen sebelius can'

pretty good spending. of course, i'm fascinated, we're about to january and starting in january i'll have dozens of people from wyoming visit me. it's a long trip from wyoming to come here and they'll come here on individual programs of the federal government and they will say please, this is how important this particular program is. please make sure that we get funding for it. one of them is head start. and they actually think that we get to look at the head start budget and make additions or subtractions from it. we don't even get to look at health and human services or transportation or any of those. they all get lumped together sometime in the year. there is no oversight. there are no decisions by the main body on how to spend a trillion dollars a year. that's the wrong way to do it. so this is a symptom of the abandonment of the committee process. instead of representatives and senators offering constructive amendments and debating spending bills in public, a couple people and their staff it this is i

>> increases the amount we will spend on health care and i do agree it would be nice to spend less. there are enormous amount to inefficiencies in the way we deliver and pay for health care and these of long standing problems. some things about the affordable care act may address but broadly speaking it does in the other direction. >> there are a couple questions. you were at the table during the affordable care act markup, were you not? i was at the heritage foundation. >> participating in the markup. >> i wasn't at the table but when you watch the process, word there any ideas that came out of heritage, or conservative republican groups that use of being accepted as amendments from any source and particular me talk about medical malpractice reforms such as micro. >> no. on medical malpractice, we had a different opinion than our friends in congress who wanted a federal solution that should be made in the states. >> the affordable care act barred it. >> my observation is frankly the bipartisanship ended, i could look up the exact date, in july of 2009, the day they finish to the he

you know all that spending has really led to any increase in efficiency of operations or rather what they've had possibly an opposite effect because we all know that when money is not an issue efficiency is usually not the first concern well i would disagree with you i don't think it's exorbitant spending at all when you look at what happened in the united states on september eleventh to have two of our biggest buildings in new york knocked down the pentagon attacked and another plane that was heading for washington d.c. that was very appropriate spending and i think we've seen the results of it you mentioned other countries other countries are not the target that the united states is for islamic extremists and so i think the united states citizens have gotten what they've paid for when they because we've been able to for you all and prevent numerous attacks on the continental united. in europe with some of our allies because we're spending so much more money on intelligence and because we are able to have a more capable intelligence service going after threats to our country well yo

because there were such a difference between the spending level that republicans wanted, and the spending level most democrats wanted, they agreed to temporarily fund the government for another short while until january 15 at current operating levels. it was not as high as democrats sought and not as low as republicans sought. in the interim, have the house budget committee and the senate budget committee put their two budget plans together in a conference committee and try to negotiate an agreement. that group, headed by paul ryan of wisconsin, the former vice presidential nominee, and democratic senator patty murray of washington. they had six weeks until today. december 13 was the deadline to come up with a deal. as you can imagine, expectations were low that they could come up with something. and then they did. >> they got that deal announced early. we are recording this interview on december 20 -- december 13. they announced the deal a couple of days ago. that has since passed the u.s. house. in the senate, it is to be determined if it gets past. passed. >> absolutely. it looks like

spending on discretionary budget.nder the budget control act. the sequester is the red line that ended up cutting spending. what this green area does is it reflects what we are doing, which is by preventing the military from getting cut any further, we're putting a little bit of money back in the sequester here and we're paying for it by cutting spending in other areas of government. for instance, we're asking public employees to pay a little bit more for their pensions. our argument is that hard-working taxpayers pay for their pensions in the first place and their benefits are on average better than the taxpayers who pay for them in the first place. we have got a number of reforms that are permanent, that actually save more money and pay for some relief of the sequester. we also see that this puts us in the right direction because, the numbers down here, a year ago when i was passing a budget in the house, we were hoping for a trillion, $19 billion in total discretionary spending. would he won't hit that spending lev

, to reduce spending. as we see with the budget deal released by chairman ryan and chairman murray, it breaks this agreement. it trades higher spending now for the promises to cut spending in the future. if you look at the report that came out, the cost estimate from cbo, 57% happened in 2022 and 2023. of the changes to direct spending. if congress is not willing to cut spending now, what reason do the american people have to believe that congress will cut spending in the out years. host: we are talking with christine harbin hanson from americans for prosperity. let's go to new hampshire, matt is on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i have talked to people for americans for prosperity. like many of the other callers, you're a corporate lobbyist. you may not want to admit it. you have grassroots people and common day people in the streets who follow your beliefs. your beliefs are snake oil. you're not telling the american people you are trying to destroy pensions. you do not believe in minimu

some of the spending down. you have democrats that are offended by the magnitude of the cuts in the food stamps. if this scenario where this kind of murray-ryan compromise can work out the differences? or will they return to some of the deadlock? >> i want to strongly agree with marty on this point. something that is not understood in washington. once you have a number, a budget

defense spending, research spending, education spending, infrastructure spending, that's what's happening. so our deficits are going to record highs over the coming couple of decades, and mandatory spending is exploding, and it's squeezing the other spending in our budget. over the next decade, the federal government is going to collect revenue of about $40 trillion, spend about $46 trillion, run a deficit of $6.3 trillion. over the next ten years, another $6.3 trillion on top of the $17 trillion debt. in that tenth year, by the way, 2023, the best-case scenario has a projected deficit, annual deficit of nearly a trillion dollars. $895 billion for one year. and by the way, that assumes no wars, it assumes a decade of prosperity, it assumes ten years of historically low interest rates, quite a rosy scenario. if any of these factors fall through, things could be much, much worse, well over a trillion dollars. and this is not a problem that can be solved by just cutting discretionary spending. over the next ten years, washington will spend more than $22 trillion on these vital programs, medi

, for every dollar they spend, we are spending $2 and 4 killing us, that's nonsense. i don't know how the doctors, an airline pilot. nobody shops for airline pilots. we expect the airline produces someone who knows what they are doing in the cockpit of the plane when we trust them with our lives. what obamacare does is addresses the free rider problem. >> that's people who don't buy insurance that ends up costing the taxpayers because we, in effect, insured them. this is an idea, by the way, promoted by dan's former employer, the heritage foundation. i would argue we would be much better off if we had universal, single-payer healthcare because all of our competitors do and they are getting better results for less money which ought to be our focus. >> i am sure dan would like to weigh in on that but i want him to weigh in on st. louis quickly if you can, dan, to close this off because the president's speech got virtually no play on network news tonight. it got very little play on the big news aggregators, cnn.com. so after the failure of the obamacare website over the

cuts that are permanent in the other part of government spend i spending that pays for the sequester relief over the life of the sequester and keep 92% of the sequester. what we're saying is in some of the across the board cuts which hit only the military starting in january which is a concern of ours we cut spending in other parts of government to pay for that and we cut -- we get $85 begin in saves from the au autopilot side of government spending to pay for $63 billion in sequester relief. that gives us $23 billion in net deficit redurkction. when i went into this bottom line keep our principles intact, no tax increases and cut spending in smarter ways to reduce the deficit. we think we kept those principles intact, what this agreement does. the democrats didn't -- went in no sequester at all and then 72% and then 92%. we see that as a good step in the right direction. not the budget deal would spend $63 billion the next two years and saves the back end and many future congresses won't be be holding of this and a criticism of washington in general. get the tax increases now and al

the passage of a new spending bill will avoid another government shutdown. the house is expected to close this friday for christmas break. >>> french forces are on the ground in central african republic. sectarian violence has engulfed the area since march. >>> in the town tha where nelson mandela grew up. "inside story" is next. >> the united states congress has plenty of work to do but during this session that hasn't been any guarantee the work will get done. clogging the inbox, spending times for the military and argentinagriculture. looming deadlines and more on "inside story." >> hello, i'm ray sores. the debate on the unemployment benefits for the jobless, year end deadlines demand action. we're going to focus on the work of the 113th congress. there is a glimmer of good news, and that's where we start. >> negotiations are making progress, moving in the right direction. they haven't closed the deal. >> congress has until the end of this week to approve another budget plan. they're not expected to reduce the federal debt or tackle the sequester spending

spending has gone down as a share of everything we go down and spend our money on.he same amount of food, but we are not going to be spending as much if the health care is an interesting story, because what you see here in the 1960's is when medicare and medicaid started to come into effect. part of the measure of consumer spending include spending that is done for us on behalf of others. so the government spending on medicare and medicaid is actually included in that green a number. included iflars are the money is being spent on our behalf to pay for services like health care. host: should social security be in the air -- in here. ? just a set aside, not so much a spending number. that i think is very telling is the yellow one. that's what you're seeing there is the rise of international trade. guest: now we are probably around 30% of clothing that is important battle on with that you see declining prices. host: 30%? have not run the statistics recently, but overall imported consumer spending is not that much. it is a little over six percent, maybe seven percent,

more than two thirds of it through spending cuts. john: spending cuts? deficit decreased because of the blowup stimulus. and the president proposed increasing spending by less than he wanted to. it's not a cut. and also thisbeing said about obamacare. >> every time they have predicted something not working, it has worked ♪ ♪ john: hardly. they applaud but it didn't work and that's when they postponed a mandate. the problem is that we hav a governme that is so big and so powerful and so expensive and fast that cannot adequately be supervised. >> and senator mike lee is on my nice list for pointing that out and david axelrod agreed with him this year. so he is on the nice side of this as well. along with rand paul, because he demanded that the president come clean about drone strikes. >> i cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the president say that he will kill americans on american soil, those who are not actively attacking a country. jo: the shok that a senator has to say something so obvious. john mccainbecause after the filibuster thathe called libert

here's what's on the spending side of the table. item. spend be cap. overall spending is set at $1.012 trillion for the current fiscal year, up from $967 billion, slightly higher than what the house wanted, and slightly lower than what the senate wanted. item. relief from sequestration. i.e., automatic spending cuts that affect both defense and domestic spending. they will be reduced by $62 billion over o twye ars. it -u no entitlement spending cuts. medicare and social security are off limits. question, does this budget deal spend the end of fiscal gridlock between now and october 2015? >> it may deal it for two years john but this was a republican capitulation. you have increased fees on airline travelers, the sequester broken, caps have been lifted off 70% of the sequester, more spending, more taxes. i think ryan brought it home, and the house stood by him, because he is one of their own but the republicans in the senate and conservatives and everyone else feel this is a capitulation, they have given up and i think paul ryan's presidential prospects

more than two thirds of it through spending cuts. john: spending cuts?hey didn't cut much of anything. the deficit decreased because of the blowup stimulus. and the president proposed increasing spending by less than he wanted to. it's not a cut. and also this being said about obamacare. >> every time they have predicted something not working, it has worked ♪ ♪ john: hardly. they applaud, but it didn't work and that's when they postponed a mandate. the problem is that we have a government that is so big and so powerful and so expensive and fast that cannot adequately be supervised. >> and senator mike lee is on my nice list for pointing that out and david axelrod agreed with him this year. so he is on the nice side of this as well. along with rand paul, because he demanded that the president come clean about drone strikes. >> i cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the president say that he will kill americans on american soil, those who are not actively attacking a country. john: the shock that a senator has to say something so obvious. john mccain, bec

they're all about spending it, increase spending it, delay spending it, no one ever talks about earningd last, this week, we've had a prime minister who has even delayed what we're all here for today by 24 hours so he could make the most to a visit to china. that pleased the chinese. that will very very important to britain. they're investing more in the 18 months in this country than in the last ten years, creating jobs in britain. so i'm really pleased. he didn't just go in the high falutent way that prime ministers do. he talked quite a few ministers so that the different parts of the economy could get moving and talking to the chinese. and he talked to 130 business people. he really, big hats off to cameron. he's done it well. and i just hope that liberal politicians, labor politicians, i hope they all get it. which if you don't get this country working hard in the private sector, generating jobs, making money, that place will have nothing to spend. >> lord digby, you've come out and said that europe really needs reform and if it doesn't reform, we should get out. are you still stic

of course we spend more. manufactured in spending on social care. when you look at the collective pie, we end up spending less than a lot of other countries. how do you define health care? how do we think about it? what should the help care system due? should it really be for these population measures? how do we think about it quite >> yeah, i would like to address that actually. it's an interesting question. i think many people run hospitals and many probably do see their job as fundamentally i get medicine, medical care, i operate, i've medical treatment. we also have to look at who is paying for medical care system. 50% of the revenue of the hospital, typically more than not is that she paid for by medicare and medicaid. that's a public dollar. the question has to be than what is that public dollar buying? should be buying health or the medicine? the two are very different i think. went to visit other countries, there's a different perception warehouse i think it's broadly to as medicine is one input to it, but so are many, many others. it's also

that was very appropriate spending and i think we've seen the results you mentioned other countries other countries are not the target that the united states is for islamic extremists and so i think the united states citizens have gotten what they've paid for when they because we've been able to for you all and prevent numerous attacks on the continental united states and in europe with some of our allies because we're spending so much more money on intelligence and because we're able to have a more capable intelligence service going after threats to our country well you just mentioned nine eleven and that was of course twelve years ago but if we consider the. funding that the cia has requested of the intelligence community or rather has requested for the fiscal year of two thousand and thirteen it is still pretty high over fifty two billion dollars and it is expected to stay at that level at least until two thousand and seventeen and just to our viewers to make it clear it is pretty much the same or similar to what the united states was spending on their own intelligence ad they hide all

agreement you agree to and increase spending now for promises of spending cuts later on.l they dot same thing again in 2016 when they are not happy with the sequestration spending cap? meanwhile our deficit and debt problem keeps growing. and those very programs that are causing it are not being addressed. that just means that the changes that we have to make eventually if we wait too long will just have to be much bigger and more painful for americans. and that's unnecessary pain. >> we hear you all three. romina boccia, douglas holtz-eakin, steve rattner, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you >> woodruff: now, what's happened to the people who invested their life's savings with disgraced financier bernie madoff? today is the fifth anniversary of his arrest for fraudulently operating a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme. five years ago the world's media followed disgraced wall street financier bernie madoff wherever he went in new york, from the courthouse to his park avenue apartment. madoff's fall from financial grace came hard and fast. in 2009, he pleaded guilty to ru