whether instead of real savings, they're going to come up with some gimmick, that, well -- listen to steve ellisan watchdog group. >> it's outrageous. it's fictitious and it's damaging. the scariest thing is that we could actually come out of the super committee in a -- if they don't do it right, we could come out of this super committee in a worst situation than we were that got us into the super committee in the first place. >> reporter: guys say who know firsthand say gimmick number one would be to cut spending that wasn't going to cut anyway. >> the government's not likely to spend as much over the next ten years as they have over the previous ten years. if they just say, all right, we're going to cut all the spending for afghanistan over the next decade, according to the congressional budget office, that would make it look like we're cutting almost $1 trillion when we would be actually cutting nothing. >> reporter: another gimmick the watchdogs are looking for is kicking the can down the road, telling other congressional committees to work out the details later. >> you committees go out the

our next presenter is steve ellis. i think your organization wins the award for best title for your recommendation. why don't you pick up with super cuts? >> i am steve ellis, vice president of taxpayers for common sense. we are a watchdog and we did come up with super cuts for the super committee. you can follow along in your package. if you want extra comments -- copies, i brought them along. for you watching on c-span, it is available at our website. i am really glad to be here and share the table with these folks. what did you like the plans are not, at least everyone here has come out -- whether you like the planes or not, at least everyone here has come out with one. congratulations to you as well. for 16 years, we have highlighted wasteful spending, exposing, naming, and killing the bridge to nowhere or going after wasteful spending in the tax code like the duplicative ethanol tax credit, we have been doing this for a long time and building on our earlier work, which was a submission to the sense and bowls commi

questions now is instead of real savings they're going to come up with some gimmick -- well, listen to steve ellis group. >> it's totally fictitious. it's damaging. we could come out of the super committee and if they don't do this right, we could come out in a worse deaf sigs situation than we were in the first place. >> guys who know all the budget tricks say gimmick number one would be to claim the cutting spending that was never going to be spent anyway. >> the best example of that is we activities in afghanistan are already winding down and the government's not likely to spend as much over the next ten years as they have over the previous ten years. >> stan collender has worked for both the house and senate budget committees. >> if they say we're going to cut spending in afghanistan for the next decade, it would look like we were cutting a trillion dollars when we would be cutting nothing. >> another is kicking the can down the road. >> the committees go out there, come back with x amount of savings, a couple hundred billion dollars worth of saferings or whatever it is, and we're going to req

steve ellis is the vice president of tax payers for common sense where he serves as a legislative liaison and media spokesperson. steve formerly served as an officer in the united states coast guard. finally, david kendall is a fellow for fiscal policy at third away and among several interesting stops i know that mr. kendall served on president clinton's health care task force in 1993. thank you very much and with that i will turn this over to you. >> thank you very much, brian coming and i would like to begin by thanking and congratulating you and the chairman, joe rickett. the thing that is pretty remarkable to have a washington organization actually accomplish its goal as thoroughly as you did yours and gives a very important goal coming and i can only hope that the new name of your organization is also made out by success on this crucial effort to end excess of government spending here in washington, and i would suggest that based on pretty much any budgetary look the budget problem is a spending problem and is not a revenue problem. we are on track to reach historical revenue levels

our next presenter is steve ellis. think your organization wins the award for best title for your recommendation. why don't you pick up with super cuts? >> i am steve ellis, vice president of taxpayers for common sense. we are a watchdog and we did come up with super cuts for the super committee. you can follow along in your package. if you want extra comments -- copies, i brought them along. for you watching on c-span, it is available at our website. i am really glad to be here and share the table with these folks. what did you like the plans are not, at least everyone here has come out -- whether you like the planes or not, at least everyone here has come out with one. congratulations to you as well. for 16 years, we have highlighted wasteful spending, exposing, naming, and killing the bridge to nowhere or going after wasteful spending in the tax code like the duplicative ethanol tax credit, we have been doing this for a long time and building on our earlier work, which was a submission to the sense and bowls committ

whether instead of real savings, they're going to come up with some gimmick that, well, listen to steve ellis >> it is totally outrageous. it is fictitious and it is actually damaging. the scariest thing is that we could actually come out of the super committee and if they don't do this right we would come out of the super committee in the worst deficit situation than we were in the first place. >> reporter: guys that know all the budget tricks say gimmick number one would be for the committee to claim it is cutting spending that never really was going to be spent anyway. >> the best example of that is we know that activities in afghanistan are already winding down and that the government is not likely to spend as much over the next ten years as they have over the previous ten years. >> reporter: stan has worked for both the house and senate budget committees. >> so if they just say all right, we're going to cut all the spending for afghanistan over the next decade, then according to the congressional budget office that would make it look like we're cutting almost $1 trillion when actually we