Joe Trippi and Karl Rove on dangers of sequester
Huge cuts set for March 1
- Duration 8:35
- Date Feb 18, 2013
Huge cuts set for March 1
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
We are less than two weeks away from the implementation of what some -- drastic reductions in the rate of spending growth known as sequestration.
Let's talk about how likely this isn't what it would mean with political strategist Joseph Trippi.
And Karl Rove gentlemen thanks for being here.
Our first of all let's talk about what the Democrats are talking about senate Democrats are talking about replacing the sequester we don't really have a White House plan per say but.
Sent to get Democrats didn't come out.
Well there's yet the sequestered in -- an 85 billion in cuts the senate plan a balanced -- they call it would end up with a 110 billion.
In both revenue and cuts to replace it.
And so -- be 55 billion in new revenue.
Most of that would be the Buffett rule 53 million dollars would come from taxing.
Higher income folks to make sure that they can't.
So they don't.
Go underneath what middle class fans pay less -- in the middle class families do.
And then you've got.
Two or three billion more in revenue it's really eliminating loopholes and other things but the 55 billion in.
Spending cuts -- seven point five billion comes from the military commission defense cuts and -- seven point five million.
Comes from farm subsidies -- and -- up there.
-- 55 million new revenue.
Republicans -- -- like that and 55 billion in cuts to to replace it from the senate plan.
This is -- -- plan they came forward with it didn't move it forward on the floor for a vote.
Before they left no so it's sitting there are no one knows whether that there's some question even about whether it could pass the senate I think it -- it but there there are those are.
Republicans wondering if this is a gambit.
Without the votes to pass it.
-- as Joseph mentioned that has no chance in the house house Republicans what's the chance in the house in the senate I mean is why they didn't bring up for vote.
There are enough Democrats who have been skeptical of the so called Buffett rule that this would be unlikely it certainly can't couldn't come through normal or the senate finance committee's.
Partied in the majority of its members -- indicated a lack of interest in the so called -- art house Republican support -- -- they've passed twice.
Hey sequestration replacement bill was over 300 billion dollars in targeted cuts.
Over the next several years -- would not only help us avoid this year is 85 million dollar sequestration across the board -- cut.
But will allow us to.
Avoid cuts in the future most of them are -- are drawn by -- for example any waste and duplication of government programs -- -- they take a bunch of job training programs.
And put them together in order to reduce cost they they roll back the president he's used administrative rule making -- greatly expand.
The use of food stamps you can get food stamps today for example if you get one dollar in utility -- it's one dollar.
It doesn't have.
Increase revenue or increase taxes as a part of the house from the wealth and the president -- except that's right -- the president talked about a balanced approach during the campaign ran television NC two dollars and fifty cents and spending cuts.
For every dollar in revenue in January he got 600 billion dollars more in revenue that translates into.
One point five trillion dollars in cuts to match the balanced proposal the president laid out in this campaign ads.
And when it's interesting that the Democrats immediately come back and see what we mean by balance was not the two dollars and fifty cents and cuts.
For every dollar revenue is a dollar in new spending for every dollar that we get and intends in the senate plan is a dollar and in new spending in cuts.
Yeah the McCain matches that.
The balance of the -- for a buck for.
Question -- rich important people know you know when you hear that this is a massive across the board cut that it really is cutting.
Gross that the Pentagon budget for example would still grow.
By about ten and a half percent over the next decade as opposed to about nineteen point 4%.
Projected by the president's budget this year when you're basically get down to this whole baseline budgeting that we often talk about people don't understand at home.
But you're cutting the rate of growth you're not cutting.
-- here here's what -- need the CBO says it's gonna look like spending even with the sequestration.
Which is one point two trillion dollars in spending restraint over the next decade.
That spending will go from 3.5 trillion dollars to five point nine and that revenues will grow from two point nine to five so will good will grow revenues by.
Two point one trillion dollars but we're gonna -- spending by 2.4 even with the sequestration cuts.
And even with this budget deal that cuts -- trillion to over the next decade.
And -- that this the 85 billion dollars this year that equals 2.4.
Percent of the overall federal budget -- the problem is.
He comes out of the discretionary side not the mandatory side.
Two thirds of the budget is mandatory on auto pilot were cut in the 13 that is discretionary spending and that does cause hardship when you get to that.
I said this is going to happen because there's just it doesn't seem like there's a way that this going that.
Be prevented before march 1 the politics of this how does this fall out you know.
And when it.
Kicks in and some people are going to be furloughed.
Some and you're going to see some pain and you're going to see stories.
How is this going to play.
But first fire agree I think it is gonna happen I mean it's just all those signs are that this is gonna and we're gonna have sequestration I don't see the votes they -- on either side really to put something together.
May happen but.
If there's going to be a blame game here and both sides are already -- up on on that as well.
-- at the problem is there even though these cuts -- small.
They really do have job impact.
I mean they're that you're you're gonna be districts out -- that are hurt by this somebody's gonna pay the price.
Republicans are gonna have to sort of try to blame the president.
President Democrats are gonna blame that Republican member -- that.
-- districts particularly some of these defense districts is going to be.
A case that that's going to be fought out there in 2014.
I think this is gonna have ramifications for two years from now.
I mean let's be clear was the White House idea to come up with this trigger this sequestration.
So it was so bad that the super committee had to act.
To come up with something that they could agree on.
But that finally congress did vote Republicans and Democrats both voted on the plan that had the sequestration so I mean there's multiple blame to go around here.
-- -- -- two things one is.
The Republicans have a vulnerability on this unless they take action and give the president.
Flexibility to move money around this particularly true -- a defense budget you have certain accounts and so the defense budget that have a long spend out.
Like the bill would go build a ship or and some accounts that have a short time -- like maintenance and operation your current training program.
And the Republicans have got to make a move to give the president the flexibility to move money around and accounts.
But the bigger problem is for the Democrats and Republicans particularly for this president is.
That the Democrats deny that that we have a spending problem the fox poll had 83% the American people saying -- in the survey.
Saying we have a spending problem and the administration and Democrats in congress Nancy Pelosi Harry Reid.
The the majority leader in the house Steny Hoyer and the president himself of all -- in the last few days we don't have a spending problem the American people think we do so.
Granted these things are gonna hurt.
In certain places and again we're gonna see a dramatized on the news with the support of the president.
But at the end of the day it's unclear to me exactly how much -- people are -- are gonna really blame the president blame the Republicans.
For what because they do think we have -- spending for -- Quickly the great thing about it's it's been ever he wants that -- got a revenue prop problems spending problem is that what they wanna do.
If it's great until it's -- thing that got cut it's my job or mine.
My Social Security your -- Medicare whatever that.
The cut isn't so yeah I think there's going to be -- -- wants it's thinks we have a spending problem.
Until this happens and the cuts come -- there's a price to pay and then they're gonna blame somebody and you're right -- there's enough blame.
On both sides with that is going to be the politics so -- two years happen.
I think there's going to be we're gonna have sequestration -- happen.
I absolutely we need presidential leadership in the eighteen months since this went on the books in order of the -- that -- the president is nowhere never even presented a plan.
Last week senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi asks -- CBO director Douglas Helmand or from congressional -- just money.
What's the number -- the president plans that we never seen president's plan.
Gentlemen as always thank you.