Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Payroll tax deal leaves current federal pensions alone

Details

  • Description

    Democratic strategist Julian Epstein weighs in

  • Duration 4:26
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

You spotted Aaron balance now to the other side Julian Epstein is a Democrat strategist -- welcome back good to see you again -- I see a toaster or go back to the pension issue.

Is it it it is it fan.

That existing federal employees do not have to pay a single pay anymore.

Into that pension plan when that pension plan is already in very dire straits financially is not -- No I don't think this is a good proposal I think fire for -- the system this way so that some federal employees have to pay more and others less existing federal -- -- -- future for employees played pay more into it and you don't want anybody anti mall right.

No well no I don't I'm I don't want pension plan.

I don't believe we should be doing any of these things for forcing employees to pay more.

I don't think we should be raising taxes on anybody I don't really don't think we should be cutting spending in the short term because of the economic situation just another debate I know we've had a before you have a lower deductible Curtis episode I think -- -- wants her mission are going well -- already -- make.

More money than in the private sector that benefits -- much better and they got a job full life.

That we have in Atlanta is in bad shape and they can't afford an extra point 75%.

Contribution to that pension plan they -- a fullbacks.

What you threw a lot of things in there and we have to kind of separated -- -- wanna -- a serious and honest debate about it.

We've come that we've talked about federal employee wages as compared to the private sector we know those are -- -- oranges comparisons look the point of the matter is this story.

The Republicans lots of it at the debate on the payroll tax we're not getting any pay for on the payroll tax wanna -- -- unemployment benefits.

Republicans are holding up the unemployment program insistent on -- switching -- here that's a position I just regular -- is just -- yourself actually -- about how frequently you suddenly get all the other.

Get on with the debate -- what you're saying is we cannot have federal -- -- pay more into that pension fund because that's bad for the economy because we need to raise aggregate demand.

Back essentially is your argument is it have gone -- -- you nothing now -- got married.

You want -- to stay the -- yet go.

No I think what Republicans are doing this because -- lost the payroll tax debate they're trying to hold up the unemployment benefits.

On this notion.

That -- the federal government's contribution into employee pennant.

Put retirement plans ought to be reduced.

Employees ought to pay more I think that's -- half fast way.

Of dealing with the deficit I think they're doing that to make a political -- to the Tea Party constituency.

Because they're only get to -- -- it when it is the fact sort go to -- the point.

I think a more serious way if you want to go what the deficit is to do what we talked about a Simpson Bowles.

President Obama proposed four trillion dollars in cuts including.

Going after Medicare Medicaid and Social Security strategy -- -- just gradually out -- and I want to serious discussion but I can't have the -- an expanded to sit does have some balls what are you saying that is how we are doing we cannot have.

Federal workers pay more a tiny fraction law.

Into that pension funds they already have very generous pensions and that pension fund is not funded.

I don't think it's unfair frankly to ask the debate a little bit -- point 75%.

More into -- federal -- what you are confusing you don't -- -- fat.

You're confusing you know -- brings -- back to square one which is the -- that's a -- -- empting federal and focus on putting a little bit more into that pension -- -- that you're gonna bring -- on issues -- you're planning on his let me tell you why you're confusing issues.

You're talking about the solvency issues with -- -- federal pension programs that is a separate issue that is an issue I grew at a deal with this is not what this it would do -- this proposal -- dealing with.

This is political cover for Republicans to say is not wait for paying unemployment benefits win -- a sports -- -- the points or the issue is spend some moments not a tiger direct you back -- -- reality and yet it issued his cup tennis it is not because and if this is a question of changing the rules midstream.

So Republicans in congress can have a partial half fast.

Pay for plan on the unemployment insurance program it has nothing to do -- solving the solvency of the cannot systems.

And the federal government -- society this is that this is paying for -- time I stand on my point I think it is on -- that they should not paid just a little bit -- -- get this -- moss and this is totally confusing emotional since this specifically drag -- argument -- public central point of fan us on got a -- can't we -- have decision if -- driven anti democratic strategist I didn't I didn't I'm dragging it back to the reality of the central point of the argument that is fast.

Load More