Democrats: GOP budget plan 'lopsided, uncompromising'
Rep. Chris Van Hollen reacts to Republican pitch
- Duration 7:16
- Date Mar 12, 2013
Rep. Chris Van Hollen reacts to Republican pitch
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
What you're Paul Ryan right Daryn you're -- -- -- him in a moment here to everybody claims to erase the budget deficit in ten years Ryan's plan does.
It's important note the plan does not cut spending it actually lowers the rate of spending.
Five trillion dollars less over ten years it would substantially lower tax rates for.
Well for individuals by establishing just to tax brackets 10% of 25%.
It also assumes that repeal of the president's signature legislation obamacare.
The budget calls for welfare and food stamp reform including the reinstating him.
Welfare programs work requirements and will provide more than 560.
Billion dollars for defense spending of the next fiscal year.
Maryland congressman Chris van Holland Democrat ranking member of the House Budget Committee by guest announcer welcome back to America's -- Morning going to be with -- he had a line four point six trillion in deficit reduction over ten years.
What's wrong -- that.
Weather is nothing wrong with deficit reduction in the issue is how you achieve it.
And making sure you achieve in a way that doesn't harm the very fragile recovery.
Are right now we will also reduced deficit so that there.
Not growing any faster than the economy will we will stabilize the debt but we will not do it away.
-- guts our investment our kids' education and violates the commitments we've made to seniors whether in Medicare.
Or Medicaid so it's a question of whether you take a balanced approach which is what we -- we proposed.
Or you take this lopsided uncompromising approach which is what we're seeing right now -- what what Paul Ryan.
You is that it's not lopsided it's not unfair the fact -- changes in Medicare don't even take place for another ten years 2024.
So llama you've got a decade away for that and what he argues ultimately is that the government's frankly just too big you look at the deficits right now.
Debts increased six trillion dollars.
And just over four years time in the administration.
Annual deficits more than a trillion dollars for each of the past four years this is what he writes in the Wall Street Journal the truth is the nation's debt as a sign of overreach.
Government is trying to do too much and -- government does too much it does not do -- -- well can you argue with that.
Well as you know when the economy was going through the tank deficits went up they are now coming down in the key is to make sure.
They come down steadily and certainly do not grow any faster.
In the economy.
We are going to have a budget that builds on the one point five trillion dollars we've already caught.
In discretionary spending that will be at the lowest level as a percent of the economy.
As during the Eisenhower administration and that's before.
The impact of the -- so yes we have to tighten our belt the issue is whether we also should close some of the tax loopholes that benefit folks at the very top.
In order to cushion the blow.
Two seniors and cuts to kids and -- important investments in our infrastructure like transportation.
If you take a balanced approach -- you hatch have shared responsibility bill rather than -- just given you know folks at the very top.
I've I've heard you talking points many times and I respect you for coming back and and arguing this again with us today no it's not talking points and seven -- outlets economic here's the question though is that.
How do you know.
Where even stand.
If your colleagues in the senate haven't even shown their hand and 14100 days.
How was it possible to work that way.
Well well well number one -- you know the senate Democrats will have a budget number two.
For the last two years we've been operate under a budget control act which is actually.
Has greater force of law than a simple budget resolution I mean.
The budget control act was not only passed by one house the congress whether it's the house -- the senate it was also signed by the president.
That's been operative for the last two years now we're moving in a new cycle and we will go into -- -- -- a situation where you have.
House and senate acting but don't don't don't be little the L statements by calling them so called talking points this is this -- affects people's lives.
And the reality is if you take the budget the way.
The Republicans in the house are presenting it it will have a drag on the economy right now that's not according to me.
That's according to independent nonpartisan congressional budget -- -- the government healthier.
No no not because it makes it happen.
Of the very steep and immediate hot.
-- in government spending in the areas that it's their targeting.
How will result according to the Congressional Budget Office in 750000.
Of your job we just judged by the end of this -- -- the case that Ryan's making is that's not cuts and spending its cuts in the increases spending.
That is in that says this is also went right.
Today in the Wall Street Journal failure either so what you wrote I read this article I got you but but this is important this is of no because this goes racism politics -- -- -- -- -- -- not -- at -- -- the question -- and -- allow -- -- -- -- another -- -- what does this is the point there -- -- the other side he'll demagogue this issue.
Yeah but remember -- anyone really taxing our Medicare proposal.
Without offering a credible alternative is complicit in the program's.
Demise that got to find the right to the point and I -- having right now.
Here we actually does not answer you have don't -- man.
What did the what did Paul Ryan -- Mitt Romney doing the last presidential election they demagogue the 715.
Billion dollars in Medicare savings.
It was pot of obamacare you remember that Dario.
That was 750 billion in savings in ten years they have nowhere close -- -- amount of savings in their ten year window and yet you know what they did.
They took every penny of those savings that they ran against those savings that they -- So it's really interesting to hear you talk about hard decisions.
When they campaigned against those savings.
And now they're using those savings in their budget on any minute now at the meeting that -- let me get -- one more of my managers think let me get there were also -- -- tax revenue.
They're also using the tax revenue -- -- again with all due respect congressman.
Is now the time that Washington.
A grand bargain.
Do you believe that's possible or not I do I do it if people are willing to compromise.
And I you know you heard.
Chairman Ryan himself say the other day on national television that he didn't think that you know the big parts of his plan would fly well that's right.
So if they're willing to compromise if they're willing to take a balanced approach the same kind of approach that bipartisan fiscal commissions have recommended in terms of the split between.
Revenue and -- then there's a path forward if they're gonna insist on doing this simply by cutting our investments in education and violating.
Our commitments to seniors we're not gonna get there you just talked about the lack of Medicare cuts -- -- Medicaid by almost a trillion dollars while he's talking right now we're gonna present his ideas it will bring you back on -- really appreciate the back -- scalpers already -- Wall Street Journal article by Paul -- on the -- I mean I don't see how that's the the fair and balanced approach but I appreciate you know what we -- you want to present democratic side where you've got -- Wall Street Journal -- to present the Republican -- And no I don't know your time -- as a Paramount side.
To come back any time Chris van Holland -- are right -- Democrat from there things.