Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
YOU KNOW WHAT?
GO CUT MORE GO GET MORE SAVINGS
-- MORE, GO GET MORE SAVINGS.
THAT'S THE STATUS QUO.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD
TWO MINUTES TO THE GENTLELADY
FROM NORTH CAROLINA, MS. FOXX.
THE GENTLELADY FROM
NORTH CAROLINA IS RECOGNIZED FOR
TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
WISCONSIN FOR THE EXCEPTIONAL
LEADERSHIP HE HAS BEEN BRINGING
TO THIS HOUSE ON THIS ISSUE OF
THE BUDGET.
I WANT TO SAY I AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE FROM GEORGIA, WE ARE
THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD.
WE ALSO HAVE THE SMARTEST PEOPLE
IN THE WORLD AND THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO BUY THIS DEMAGOGUERY
ANYMORE.
THE PRESIDENT AND DEMOCRATIC
POLITICAL STRATEGISTS ARE
ENGAGED IN DEMOCRAT GOL GOINGRY
OF THE WORST SORT -- DEMAGOGUERY
OF THE WORST SORT.
YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT ACCUSED
OF US OF WANTING TO LEAVE SICK
WE HEARD THIS BEFORE.
SENATOR FRANK LAWSUITENBERG
VOICED HIS CONCERN THAT THE BILL
WOULD TRANSFORM AMERICA INTO A
THIRD WORLD NATION LEAVING,
QUOTE, CHILDREN HUNGRY AND
HOMELESS, BEGGING FOR MONEY,
BEGGING FOR FOOD AND EVEN AT 8
AND 9 YEARS OLD ENGAGING IN
PROSTITUTION.
SENATOR MOSELEY BROWN TRUMPED
HIM BY WONDERING ALLOWED WHETHER
THE WELFARE REFORM BILL WOULD
PROMPT THE WIDESPREAD AUCTIONS
OF ABANDONED CHILDREN INTO
SLAVERY.
JILL NATION OF THE NATION DID
ONE BETTER BY PREDICTING THAT
WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASS
COMMUNITIES ALL OVER AMERICA
WILL BECOME SCARY VIOLENT
WASTELANDS.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
MADE A MORE PRO SAYIC PREDICTION
THAT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
ENACTMENT, THE BILL WOULD PUT
1.5 MILLION TO 2.5 MILLION
CHILDREN INTO POVERTY.
EVEN DANIEL PATRICK MOIN HAN
WARNED THAT THE WALL WOULD HAVE,
QUOTE, CHILDREN SLEEPING ON
WHAT HAPPENED?
CHILD POVERTY RATES FELL BY 1%
PER YEAR IN THE FIVE YEARS
FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF THE
1996 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
WORK OPPORTUNITY ACT AND THEY
REMAIN BELOW 1995 LEVELS EVEN
THOUGH THE NATION IS STILL
EMERGING FROM A SEVERE
RECESSION.
TRANSFORMING WELFARE BY AMONG
OTHER THINGS BLOCK GRANTING THE
PROGRAM AND GIVING STATES MORE
CONTROL OVER ITS IMPLEMENTATION
CUT KATE CASE LOADS IN HALF
AGAINST THE BACK DROP OF FALLING
POVERTY RATES.
IN ALMOST EVERY PARTICULAR THE
CRITICS WERE WRONG.
. GOVERNMENT CAN PLAY A
POSITIVE ROLE IN THIS AREA WITH
POLICIES AIMED AT HELPING THOSE
WHO ARE DOWN ON THEIR LUCK GET
BACK ON THEIR FEET.
THE GENTLELADY'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS AN
ADDITIONAL 30 SECONDS.
THIS STRENGTHENS THE
SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND HELP KEEP
RECOVER FROM POVERTY AND LEAD
SELF-SUFFICIENT LIVES.
AND I YIELD BACK.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND.
WE ASK EVERY
AMERICAN TO READ THIS REPUBLICAN
BUDGET AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT
REFLECTS THEIR VALUES AND THE
CHOICES THAT THEY WOULD MAKE.
AND WE BELIEVE WHEN THEY DO
THAT, THEY'LL REACH THE SAME
CONCLUSION THAT THE BIPARTISAN
FISCAL COMMISSION DID, WHICH IS
THAT IT IS SIMPLY UNBALANCED.
IT IS SIMPLY UNFAIR.
IT PUTS ALL THE BURDEN ON THE
SACRIFICE ON WORKING MEN AND
WOMEN.
AND IT DOES PROVIDE THOSE FOLKS
AT THE VERY TOP ONCE AGAIN, WE
HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE, WITH A BIG
TAX BREAK.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO MEDICARE,
IT'S A FACT, SENIORS ARE NO
LONGER GOING TO BE ABLE TO
CHOOSE TO STAY IN MEDICARE AND
FORCED INTO THE PRIVATE
INSURANCE MARKET WITH EVER
INCREASING COSTS AND EVER
DECLINING SUPPORT.
THAT IS RATIONING CARE.
THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE COMPANIES
DO IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
MONEY TO BUY THE BENEFITS THAT
THEY ARE OFFERING, YOU DON'T GET
THEM.
IF YOUR DOCTOR IS NOT ON THAT
PLAN, TOUGH LUCK.
AND SO THOSE ARE THE CHOICES
THAT WE'RE MAKING THIS EVENING
AND I HOPE AS WE GO FORWARD, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL LOOK VERY
CLOSELY AT THIS PROPOSAL.
AND I'M CONFIDENT THEY WILL
REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT
THE BIPARTISAN FISCAL COMMISSION
DID, WHICH IS IT'S JUST NOT
BALANCED AND DOESN'T REFLECT
WITH THAT --
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD MYSELF TWO
MINUTES, MADAM CHAIR.
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT OUR DRIVERS
OF THE DEBT ARE.
SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICAID,
MEDICARE.
THE HEALTH CARE ENTITLEMENTS ARE
THE BIGGEST DRIVERS.
THE BLACK LINE HERE SHOWS OUR
REVENUES.
THESE THREE PROGRAMS ALONE,
REVENUES.
YOU THROW INTEREST ON TOP, WHICH
YOU HAVE TO PAY INTEREST, BY
2035, THEY CONSUME EVERY SINGLE
PENNY OF EVERY FEDERAL TAX
EVERYBODY PAYS.
NOW, WHY ARE WE PROPOSING WHAT
WE'RE PROPOSING ON MEDICARE?
BECAUSE WE HAVE EXPERIENCE THAT
THIS KIND OF THING WORKS.
GIVING PEOPLE MORE CHOICES,
GIVING PEOPLE -- HAVING MORE
DRUGS.
THAT'S A PROGRAM, VERY
SUCCESSFUL, VERY POPULAR.
WHEN THAT PROGRAM WAS PASSED, IT
WAS PROJECTED TO COST $634
BILLION OVER THE BUDGET WINDOW
AND ENDED UP COSTING $733
BILLION.
IT CAME IN 41% BE LOCAL BUDGET.
PREMIUMS ARE LOWER THAN WERE
ANTICIPATED.
NAME ME ONE OTHER GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM THAT ACTUALLY CAME IN
41% BELOW COST PROJECTIONS?
THERE ISN'T ONE.
WHY DID THIS ONE DO THAT?
CHOICE, COMPETITION, THE SENIOR
IS IN CHARGE.
WE ARE NOT INTERESTED, MADAM
CHAIR, OF GIVING CONTROL OVER
MEDICARE TO 15 UNELECTED PEOPLE
TO DECIDE WHERE, WHEN, HOW AND
WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE
THEY GET THEIR MEDICARE.
WE PROTECT MEDICARE FOR CURRENT
SENIORS.
WE DENY THE 15 PEOPLE ON THE
BOARD THE ABILITY TO RATION
THEIR CARE.
AND WE WANT 40 MILLION SENIORS
TO HAVE THE CHOICES.
WE WANT THEM TO BE IN CONTROL OF
THEIR MEDICARE BECAUSE WHAT
WE'VE LEARNED, GIVING MYSELF 0
ADDITIONAL SECONDS TO MAKE MY --
30 ADDITIONAL SECONDS TO MAKE MY
POINT.
GIVING THEM MORE CONTROL, THE
SENIOR, THE BENEFICIARY, THE
PATIENT, NOT THE GOVERNMENT,
COMPETITION WORKS.
WE HAVE TRIED SO MANY DIFFERENT
PLANS AT RATIONING CARE, THEY
DON'T WORK.
ONE PERSON DOES WORK TO REDUCE
PRICES.
THE CONSUMER, THAT IS WHY WE ARE
SAVING MEDICARE.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED.
CHAIRMAN.
I HAVE TO SAY TO SAY THIS PLAN
SAVES MEDICARE IS IN MY VIEW, OR
WELLIAN AND REMINDS ME OF THE
PHRASE MANY YEARS AGO, THAT YOU
HAVE TO DESTROY THE VILLAGE IN
ORDER TO SAVE IT.
I HAVE TO SAY THAT IF YOU LOOK
AT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, YOU
ARE SAYING TO SENIORS, YOU HAVE
TO GO IN THE PRIVATE INSURANCE
MARKET.
THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED A COUPLE
OF OTHER EXAMPLES OF THE PRIVATE
MARKET, BUT IN THIS CASE, WE
HAVE ALREADY EXPERIMENTED
THROUGH MEDICARE ADVANTAGE WITH
THAT KIND OF PRIVATE PLAN WITHIN
MEDICARE, AND YOU KNOW WHAT WE
DISCOVERED?
THAT YOU HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE THEM
AT 114% OF THE FEE-FOR-SERVICE
PROGRAM.
IT COST US MORE FOR MEDICARE
ADVANTAGE.
IN FACT, ONE OF THE REFORMS WE
MADE AS PART OF THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT WAS TO SAY WE AREN'T
GOING TO ASK THE TAXPAYERS AND
TO SUBSIDIZE THOSE PRIVATE PLANS
THAT ARE RUNNING OVER COSTS.
YOU KNOW WHAT?
IN THIS BUDGET, OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES KEPT THAT REFORM.
IF IT WAS SO GREAT TO HAVE THE
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN, HOW
COME THEY TOOK PART OF THE
SAVINGS FROM THAT PLAN?
THEY DID NOT.
SO IT IS A BIG MISTAKE TO SAY TO
SENIORS, WE ARE GOING TO THROW
YOU INTO THE PRIVATE INSURANCE
MARKET WITH AN EVER DECLINING --
THE REASON IT ISN'T A PREMIUM,
IT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE PREMIUM.
WHAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE IS
A PREMIUM SUPPORT SYSTEM THROUGH
A FAIR SHARE FORMULA.
THIS IS NOT A FAIR SHARE FOR
SENIORS.
AND I RESERVE.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
WE PUT $10 BILLION
BACK INTO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE TO
MAKE SURE THE PROGRAM STAYS
ALIVE.
BUT I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO A
MEMBER OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE,
THE GENTLEMAN FROM KANSAS, TWO
MINUTES.
I'M A LITTLE
CONFUSED HERE ON THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE LISTENING TO THIS
DEBATE ABOUT THE BUDGET AND I'M
A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHICH
PARTY WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS
CHAMBER FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS
AS WE RAN UP TRILLIONS AND
TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF
IF THE CONCERN WASN'T ABOUT
DEFICITS, THE CONCERN WAS ABOUT
SPENDING AND HOW MUCH MORE COULD
WE DO AND HOW MUCH MORE CAN WE
THROW INTO THE ECONOMY.
AND WE LOOK AT THE RESULTS
TODAY, UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS THAT
WE HAVEN'T SEEN FOR A LONG TIME,
MADAM CHAIRMAN.
AS WE DEBATE AND DISCUSS THIS
BUDGET, WE MIGHT BE A LITTLE
RUSTY.
IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS
SINCE WE ALLOWED A BUDGET ON THE
AND I WELCOME THAT DEBATE.
I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES,
PLEASE READ THE BILL.
PLEASE DO.
AND HERE'S WHAT YOU WILL FIND.
A PATH TO PROSPERITY, WE
BELIEVE, RUNS NOT THROUGH
WASHINGTON, NOT THROUGH THIS
FLOOR, CERTAINLY NOT THROUGH THE
OTHER CHAMBER, BUT THE PATH TO
PROSPERITY IN THIS COUNTRY RUNS
THROUGH THE HARD WORK OF
ENTREPRENEURS, A FLATTER, FAIRER
TAX SYSTEM, CLOSES TAX
LOOPHOLES, WORK RATHER THAN
WELFARE.
THE RESULT OF THIS, MADAM
CHAIRMAN, WE EXPECT ONE MILLION
NEW JOBS POTENTIALLY MIGHT BE
CREATED IF WE GET WASHINGTON OUT
OF THE WAY AS WE SEE IN THE PATH
TO PROSPERITY.
WE BELIEVE THIS PLAN, THIS PLAN
BELIEVES IN ONE THING IN THE
POWER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
NOT WASHINGTON ELITES.
THIS PLAN, THIS BUDGET IS ABOUT
LIBERTY AND FREEDOM, MADAM
CHAIRMAN.
I HOPE AND PRAY THAT 2011 WILL
BE REMEMBERED FOR NOT WHAT WE DO
HERE BUT FOR WHETHER OR NOT THE
END RESULT OF OUR ACTIONS WILL
HELP US RESTORE THE AMERICAN
DREAM IN OUR COUNTRY.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS
I YIELD 1 1/2
MINUTES TO THE FORMER INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
FOR EIGHT YEARS, I WAS THE
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER IN
CALIFORNIA AND EIGHT YEARS I
BATTLED THE HEALTH INSURANCE
INDUSTRY.
WHAT WE HEARD ON THE FLOOR, 2011
WILL BE REMEMBERED, WHAT IT WILL
BE REMEMBERED FOR IS THE DEATH
OF MEDICARE, THE DEMISE, THE
DEATH OF MEDICARE, THE MOST
SUCCESSFUL INSURANCE PROGRAM,
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM IN THIS
NATION.
IT IS EFFICIENT.
IT IS EFFECTIVE.
IT IS A NATIONWIDE STANDARD
POLICY AVAILABLE TO EVERY
AMERICAN 65 YEARS OF AGE AND
OLDER AND SOME OF THOSE WHO ARE
YOUNGER.
I HEARD THE AUTHOR OF THIS BILL
SAY COMPETITION WOULD MAKE IT
IN FACT, IT DOES NOT.
IN FACT, IT DOES NOT.
THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE
INDUSTRY IS INEFFICIENT,
INEFFECTIVE, DISCRIMINATORY AND
CLEARLY, CLEARLY HARMS CUSTOMERS
THERE IS A PROFIT MOTIVE THAT
HAS TO BE PAID FOR.
THERE ARE COMPENSATIONS FOR THE
WHO SELL THE INSURANCE.
ALL OF THAT ADDS UP.
IT IS ALSO EXTREMELY INEFFICIENT
IN THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE
POLICIES, MULTIPLE PEOPLE THAT
HAVE TO BE PAID.
THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE TO
BE PAID DIFFERENT DEDUCTIONS,
DIFFERENT CO-PAYS AND WHEN YOU
ADD TO IT, MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE EVERYTHING
THEY HAVE POSSIBLY CAN OVER THE
LAST TWO MINUTES --
HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD 15
SECONDS.
MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE EVERYTHING
THEY CAN TO REPEAL AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT.
YOU ARE THROWING SENIOR CITIZENS
TO THE SHARKS, THE HEALTH
INSURANCE SHARKS.
I URGE US NOT TO DO THAT.
I YIELD BACK.
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
SECONDS.
WE HAVE NEW DATA FROM THE CENTER
FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
SERVICES ON NATIONAL HEALTH CARE
MEDICARE COSTS GREW BY 7.9%.
WOULD THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD?
I DO NOT YIELD.
AND COMPETITION DOES WORK.
WOULD THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD?
I DO NOT.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN FOR TWO
MINUTES.
AS A PRESSURE MAN IN
THIS HOUSE, IT HAS BEEN A UNIQUE
TO SEE ONE OF THE AGE-OLD
TACTICS TO TAKE PLACE, SCARING
SENIORS, BUT NOT TO MOVE THE
BALL DOWN THE FIELD BUT FOR
POLITICAL POINTS.
THE GENTLEMAN WAS TELLING THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT IT'S NOT
BROKEN AND GOING TO CONTINUE TO
WORK.
THESE ARE C.B.O. CHARTS.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THEM, IT'S
BROKEN AND WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.
WE HAVE TO REFORM THIS PROGRAM
TO SAVE IT.
AND TO DENY THAT IS TRYING TO
SCARE SENIORS FOR YOUR OWN
POLITICAL GAIN.
WOULD THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD?
NO, I WON'T.
WE HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH THE
WHAT?
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT IF WE
REFORM IT, WE CAN SAVE IT FOR
OUR CURRENT RETIREES.
BUT NOT ONLY THAT, THOSE WHO ARE
ABOUT TO RETIRE, 55 AND OLDER,
WE CAN SAVE THE PROGRAM FOR THEM
AS WELL AND MODIFY THE PROGRAM
FOR THOSE OF US IN LATER
GENERATIONS BUT LET NOT SCARE
OUR SENIORS TONIGHT AND TELL
THEM THAT THIS PLAN IS GOING TO
TAKE AWARE THEIR CARE BECAUSE
IT'S NOT.
THIS PLAN AND IT'S PROPOSAL IS
THAT THOSE WHO ARE 55 AND OLDER
ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET THE
SAME PLAN THAT EXISTS TODAY.
THE REFORMS ARE FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS AND WITH THOSE
REFORMS, WE ARE GUARANTEEING
THAT CURRENT RIRYEES GET THE
BENEFITS WE -- RETIREES GET THE
BENEFITS WE PROMISED THEM.
YOU SHOULD JOIN US AND WORK TO
RESOLVE THIS ISSUE AND MAKE SURE
OUR GRAND MOTHERS AND
GRANDFATHERS GET THE BENEFITS WE
PROMISED THEM.
I YIELD BACK.
THE THE GENTLEMAN
YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED.
MAY I INQUIRE AS
TO HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND HAS 2 1/4 MINUTES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN HAS
7 3/4 MINUTES.
YOU WANT ME TO CATCH
UP?
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO
WOODAL.
I'M GLAD I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AFTER MY
FRESHMAN COLLEAGUE FROM
WISCONSIN.
I WAS DOWN IN MY OFFICE AND I
ASKED WHAT ARE YOU HEARING
ABOUT?
ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT THE
CONTINUING RESOLUTION?
HE SAID NO.
I SAID WHAT ARE YOU HEARING
ABOUT?
HE SAID I'M HEARING FROM SENIORS
WHO ARE SCARED AND HEARING FROM
FOLKS ON MEDICARE WHO ARE
SCARED.
NOW WHO DOES THAT SURPRISE?
IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME AND I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GOAL WAS
WHEN WE WENT DOWN THIS SCARE
TACTIC PATH.
AND I WILL SAY TO THE RANKING
MEMBER, I KNOW YOU KNOW BETTER.
YOU HAVE A PERSUASIVE CASE TO
MAKE FOR WHY YOUR VISION IS
BETTER THAN OUR VISION, BUT YOU
ARE SCARING PEOPLE.
YOU ARE SCARING PEOPLE --
WILL THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD.
ANYONE 55 YEARS OF
AGE OR OLDER --
IS IT TRUE?
I WILL NOT YIELD.
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED, BE
ASHAMED.
I RECLAIM MY TIME.
IF YOU DON'T
LIKE THE ANSWER YOU ARE GOING TO
HEAR.
ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
CONTROLS THE TIME.
WE HAVE HONEST
DEBATES HERE AND WE HAVE HONEST
DISAGREEMENTS HERE.
BUT FOLKS ARE SCARED BECAUSE YOU
ARE SCARING THEM.
AND YOU KNOW GOOD AND WELL -- I
WANT TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH
MR. DID YOU HAVE IF I'S COMMENTS
THAT WE CAN GET TOGETHER TO
SOLVE THIS PROBLEM OR JUST SCARE
I WILL YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN IF
ANYONE 55 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER
WILL HAVE THEIR BENEFITS.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL
SUSPEND.
THE MEMBERS WILL SUSPEND.
POINT OF ORDER.
POINT OF ORDER.
POINT OF ORDER.
MEMBER --
ALL MEMBERS ARE ROY
REMINDED TO ADDRESS THEIR
COMMENTS -- ARE REMINDED TO
ADDRESS THEIR COMMENTS TO THE
CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
WISCONSIN SEEK RECOGNITION?
I WILL.
TIME.
SO I'LL YIELD 1 1/2 MINUTES TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, MR. MULVANEY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA IS RECOGNIZED FOR
1 1/2 MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
I WANT TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TO A
TOPIC THAT WAS RAISED EARLIER
TONIGHT BY MY COLLEAGUE, MR.
ELLISON, FROM MINNESOTA.
AND IT'S A COMMENT THAT, A
MESSAGE THAT HAS BEEN REPEATED
SEVERAL TIMES TONIGHT AND WAS IN
FACT REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES
DURING THE COMMITTEE PROCESS,
WHICH DEALT WITH THE SUBSIDIES
THAT WE GIVE TO BIG OIL.
TO OIL AND GAS.
I WILL TELL MY FOLKS, ESPECIALLY
MY COLLEAGUE FROM MARYLAND, MR.
VAN HOLLEN, THAT I SHARE THE
FRUSTRATIONS THAT YOU HAVE WITH
THOSE TYPES OF SUBSIDIES.
I ALSO SHARE THE FRUSTRATIONS I
HAVE WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF MY
CONVERSATION THAT ALTERNATIVE
ENERGIES RECEIVE SEVEN TIMES AS
MANY SUBSIDIES IN THE TAX CODE
AS OIL AND GAS.
IN FACT, IF YOU TAKE THE
SUBSIDIES -- THE EXCISE TAX
CREDIT FOR ETHANOL, THAT NUMBER
RISES TO 10 TIMES.
SO I DO SHARE YOUR FRUSTRATIONS
WITH THE AMOUNT OF TAX CREDITS
THAT THE CODE CURRENTLY GIVES TO
OIL AND GAS BUT I'M 10 TIMES AS
FRUSTRATED, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN,
WITH THE SUBSIDIES THAT WE GIVE
TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES.
I WOULD INVITE, MADAM
CHAIRWOMAN, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WHO HAVE
THAT SAME FRUSTRATION TO JOIN US
AND VOTE FOR THE BUDGET.
IT'S THE BEST CHANCE THEY'RE
GOING TO GET THIS YEAR TO GET
RID OF THESE SUBSIDIES AS PART
OF THIS PROCESS OF CLOSING THE
LOOPHOLES, LOWERING THE TAX
RATES AND BROADENING THE BASE.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED.
I RESERVE.
I'LL CLOSE UP IF YOU
WANT TO GO AHEAD.
MADAM CHAIR.
MARYLAND --
I HAVE REMAINING?
2 1/4 MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
MARYLAND IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU.
WE'VE HAD A SPIRITED DEBATE THIS
CHOICES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE AS
A COUNTRY.
WE ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE TO
REDUCE OUR DEFICITS IN A
PREDICTABLE, STEADY WAY.
THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU DO
IT?
AND WE BELIEVE, AS DID THE
CO-CHAIRS OF THE BIPARTISAN
FISCAL COMMISSION, THAT THE
REPUBLICAN PLAN IS UNBALANCED.
AND IT'S UNBALANCED BECAUSE IT
ASKS VERY LITTLE ON THE FOLKS AT
THE VERY TOP AND REDUCES
DRAMATICALLY OUR INVESTMENTS IN
OUR KIDS' EDUCATION AND IT DOES
END THE MEDICARE GUARANTEE,
SENIORS WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE
TO STAY IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM,
THEY WILL BE FORCED INTO THE
INSURANCE PROGRAM AND IT
IMMEDIATELY, IT IMMEDIATELY DOES
END THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG
BENEFIT.
SOMETHING WE WORKED HARD TO
CLOSE, THE DOUGHNUT HOLE.
IT ENDS THE EFFORT THAT WAS PUT
IN PLACE UNDER THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT TO END THE DOUGHNUT
HOLE.
SO I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA WHO SPEAK EARLIER,
THOSE SENIORS WHO ARE CALLING
HIS OFFICE, THEY WILL LOSE THAT
BENEFIT IN CLOSING THE DOUGHNUT
HOLE RIGHT AWAY IF THIS
REPUBLICAN BUDGET PASSES AND FOR
OTHER SENIORS AND PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN PAYING IN THE MEDICARE
SYSTEM THROUGH THEIR PAYROLL
TAXES, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY
HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE MEDICARE
GUARANTEE.
AND THROWING THEM INTO THE
PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET AND
GIVING THEM A DEAL THAT MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS DO NOT GIVE
OURSELVES IS WRONG.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
WE HAVE A FAIR SHARE DEAL AND
WE'RE ASKING SENIORS TO TAKE A
RAW DEAL.
WE HAVE A TRUE PEOPLE ARE
UPSUPPORT SYSTEM FOR MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS.
WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SHARES THE RISK OF INCREASING
COSTS.
UNDER THE REPUBLICAN PLAN
THEY'RE ASKING SENIORS TO DO
WHAT THEY DON'T WANT MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS TO DO, TAKE ALL THE
RISK OF THE RISING COSTS.
THOSE ARE NOT CHOICES THAT
REFLECT AMERICAN VALUES AND
PRIORITIES.
WE SHOULD NOT BE GIVING TAX
BREAKS TO THE FOLKS AT THE TOP
AND ENDING THE MEDICARE
GUARANTEE.
THANK YOU.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN IS
I YIELD MYSELF THE
REMAINDER OF THE TIME.
FIRST LET ME SAY, WITH RESPECT
TO THE MEDICARE GUARANTEE, WE
KEEP HEARING THAT.
AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE SAID IT
OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN OUR
BUDGET, GO TO BUDGET.HOUSE.GOV
IF YOU WANT TO READ IT.
WITH THE NEW MEDICARE PLAN FOR
THE PEOPLE 54 AND BELOW, IT'S A
MEDICARE GUARANTEE.
THE PLANS YOU WILL BE GIVEN TO
SELECT FROM, JUST LIKE A SYSTEM
THAT WORKS LIKE THE ONE WE HAVE,
LIKE THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG
BENEFIT PLAN, THEY'RE GUARANTEED
PLANS.
YOU'RE GUARANTEED TO GET THEM IF
YOU WANT THEM.
AND YOUR SUBSIDY IS GUARANTEED.
NOW, WE SIMPLY SAY WEALTHY
PEOPLE SHOULDN'T GET AS MUCH OF
A SUBSIDY AS EVERYBODY ELSE.
LOWER INCOME PEOPLE SHOULD GET A
BIGGER SUBSIDY AND AS PEOPLE GET
SICKER THEY TOO SHOULD GET A
BIGGER SUBSIDY TO PROTECT THEIR
PREMIUMS AND I WOULD SIMPLY SAY,
THE GREATEST DANGER, ENEMY,
THREAT TO MEDICARE IS THE STATUS
QUO.
MEDICARE GOES INSOLVENT IN NINE
YEARS.
BUT LET ME LOOK AT THIS FROM A
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DEBT BEFORE
IN OUR COUNTRY.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE, WHEN
YOU BUY A HOUSE OR GET A CAR OR
GET A BUSINESS LOAN, YOU GET
AND WHAT MATTERS IS HOW BIG IS
YOUR DEBT RELATIVE TO YOUR
ABILITY TO PAY IT?
IT ALSO MATTERS, WHO ARE YOU
BORROWING IT FROM?
ARE YOU BORROWING IT FROM YOUR
LOCAL COMMUNITY BANK, YOUR
BROTHER-IN-LAW?
FINE.
WHERE ARE WE BORROWING OUR MONEY
WE USED TO LEND IT TO OURSELVES,
LEND IT TO OURSELVES.
IN 1975 -- IN 1970 5% OF OUR
DEBT WAS HELD BY FOREIGNERS.
1990, 19% OF OUR DEBT WAS HELD
BY FOREIGNERS.
TODAY, 47% OF OUR DEBT IS HELD
BY OTHER COUNTRIES.
NUMBER ONE IS CHINA.
WE'RE BORROWING 42 CENTS OF
EVERY DOLLAR TODAY AND HALF OF
THAT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES,
NUMBER ONE BEING CHINA.
LOOK AT WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
WE'RE HEADED WITH A CRUSHING
BURDEN OF DEBT.
THE DEBT GOES TO DOUBLE THE SIZE
OF THE ECONOMY, THEN TRIPLE THE
SIZE OF THE ECONOMY TO EIGHT
TIMES THE SIZE OF THE ECONOMY.
THE C.B.O. TELLS US THE ECONOMY
CRASHES IN 2037.
THEIR COMPUTERS CAN'T FIGURE OUT
HOW THE AMERICAN ECONOMY CAN
GROW PAST THE YEAR 2037 BECAUSE
OF THE DEBT BURDENS.
WE CAN'T KEEP BORROWING MONEY
FROM OTHER COUNTRIES TO CASH
FLOW OUR GOVERNMENT.
WE ARE GIVING THEM OUR
SOVEREIGNTY.
WE ARE LOSING CONTROL OF OUR OWN
DESTINY.
WE ARE GIVING OUR CHILDREN A
DEBT PRISON.
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?
BECAUSE POLITICIANS FROM BOTH
POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE BEEN
MAKING PROMISES AND PROMISES
THAT ARE EMPTY.
WE NEED TO GET GOVERNMENT IT
LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS.
-- TO LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS.
WE CAN'T KEEP SPENDING MONEY WE
DON'T HAVE.
AND BY THE WAY YOU DON'T FIX
THIS BY RAISING TAXES AND
RAISING TAXES AND RAISING TAXES.
YOU FIX THIS BY CUTTING SPENDING
NOVEL IDEA, I KNOW IT IS IN
WASHINGTON, SO WE'RE GOING TO
START, WE'RE GOING TO START BY
CUTTING $6.2 TRILLION IN
SPENDING.
WE'RE GOING TO START BY PUTTING
THE RIGHT POLICIES TO GROW THE
ECONOMY.
WE'RE GOING TO START BY KEEPING
THE PROMISE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE
RETIRED SO THAT THEIR MEDICARE
FOR THEM.
WE'RE GOING TO START BY SAVING
THESE PROGRAMS FOR FUTURE
PROMISES.
WE'RE GOING TO START BY
PRESERVING OUR SOCIAL SAFETY NET
AND MAKING IT MORE ADAPTIVE,
RESILIENT AND SUSTAINABLE FOR
THE 21ST CENTURY.
WE WANT TO REPAIR THE SOCIAL
SAFETY NET SO IT WORKS.
AND WE WANT TO GEAR IT NOT
TOWARD KEEPING PEOPLE ON
WELFARE, BUT GETTING THEM BACK
ON THEIR FEET, INTO LIVES OF
SELF-SUFFICIENCY SO THEY TOO CAN
REACH THE AMERICAN DREAM.
WE'RE GOING TO START BY PASSING
THIS BUDGET SO THAT WE CAN GIVE
OUR CHILDREN A DEBT-FREE NATION.
SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN THE
LEGACY OF AMERICA, WHICH EVERY
GENERATION PRIOR TO OURS UPHELD
WHICH IS GIVE THE NEXT
GENERATION A MORE PROSPEROUS
AMERICA, A BET WITHER CHANCE, A
BETTER CHANCE -- A BETTER
CHANCE, A BETTER CHANCE AT
SECURING THE AMERICAN DREAM.
IF WE DON'T DO THIS, IF WE DON'T
FIX THIS, IF WE DON'T MAKE THE
TOUGH CHOICES NOW TO GET THIS
UNDER CONTROL, WE WILL BE A
FIRST GENERATION TO SEVER THAT
LEGACY.
MADAM CHAIR, THAT'S A DISGRACE,
IT'S WITHIN OUR CONTROL, WE SEE
THIS COMING, WE KNOW WHAT'S
HAPPENING, WE KNOW WHY IT'S
HAPPENING.
AND IF WE DON'T FIX THIS BEFORE
IT GETS OUT OF CONTROL, SHAME ON
US.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR.
BRADY, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW YORK, MR. HINCHEY, EACH WILL
CONTROL 30 MINUTES ON THE
SUBJECT OF ECONOMIC GOALS AND
POLICIES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE, I YIELD
MYSELF AS MUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME AND WILL GIVE MY REMARKS
IN THE WELL.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRMAN.
THIS COUNTRY IS A STAR FOR TWO
TELLERS.
PEOPLE IN CONGRESS WILL TELL
THEM WHAT THE PROBLEMS THIS
COUNTRY FACES, GIVE THEM OPTIONS
AND HELP THEM MAKE THE RIGHT
CHOICE.
PEOPLE WHO ARE STRONG ENOUGH TO
LEAD AND BOLD ENOUGH TO LEAD AT
A TIME WHERE OUR COUNTRY NEEDS
LEADERSHIP.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE BUDGET WHEN
IT COMES TO THE ECONOMY WHERE
THE PRESIDENT HAS FAILED, HOUSE
REPUBLICANS WILL LEAD.
THE PAUL RYAN BUDGET HELPS SPUR
JOB CREATION IN AMERICA TODAY,
STOP SPENDING MONEY THE
GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE, IT
LIFTS THE CRUSHING BURDEN OF
DEBT AND THIS PLAN PUTS THE
BUDGET ON THE PATH TO BALANCE
AND PAYING DOWN THE DEBT OVER
THE LONG-TERM AND IT PUTS THE
ECONOMY ON THE PATH TO
PROSPERITY.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY.
IT IS THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN OF
MOST PEOPLE AND THE DEBT AND
DEFICIT HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH
IT.
WE ARE UNDERGOING ONE OF THE
WORST RECOVERIES WE'VE SEEN IN A
LONG TIME.
IT IS TWO TO THREE TIMES SLOWER
THAN THE REAGAN RECOVERY AND
THERE IS REASON FOR THAT.
WE WERE TOLD THAT -- BY THE
PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL
DEMOCRATS -- IF WE JUST SPENT
MONEY, SPEND THE STIMULUS, SPEND
INCREASED DEFICITS, THAT THE
ECONOMY WOULD RECOVER AND THEY
WERE WRONG.
AFTER SPENDING HUNDREDS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE
STIMULUS WE HAVE TWO MILLION
FEWER JOBS IN AMERICA TODAY THAN
WHEN THE STIMULUS BEGAN.
WE HAVE FEWER JOBS TODAY THAN
WHEN ALL THAT SPENDING TOOK OFF.
WE WERE TOLD IF CONGRESS PASSED
ALL THIS STIMULUS THAT OUR
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TODAY WOULD BE
6.8%.
IT'S 8.8%.
AND ONLY THAT LOW BECAUSE SO
MANY PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN UP SIMPLY
THEY'VE LOST HOPE.
AND THEN FINALLY FOR THOSE WHO
SAY WE JUST SPEND MORE TO CREATE
THIS ECONOMY, THEY WERE OFF
THEIR PREDICTIONS BY SEVEN
MILLION AMERICAN JOBS.
IT'S TIME TO STOP LISTENING TO
THE ECONOMISTS WHO GOT IT WRONG
AND START LISTENING TO
ECONOMISTS WHO GOT IT RIGHT.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT
SPENDING HAS DONE TO OUR ECONOMY
HERE'S THE CHART.
IT LOOKS BACK ON THE LAST 40
YEARS IN AMERICA AND IT TRACKS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
AGAINST JOB CREATION ALONG MAIN
STREET.
NOT GOVERNMENT JOBS, BUT JOBS IN
THE PRIVATE SECTOR, SMALL,
MEDIUM, LARGE BUSINESSES THAT
OUR ECONOMY DEPENDS UPON.
THE BLUE LINE IS GOVERNMENT
SPENDING.
THE RED LINE ARE JOBS ALONG MAIN
AS YOU CAN TELL, LOOK AT BLUE
LINE, LOOK AT HOW DIFFERENT JOB
CREATION IS.
IN FACT, OVER EACH OF THESE FOUR
DECADES NOT ONLY IS THERE NO
CORRELATION BETWEEN FEDERAL
SPENDING AND JOBS ALONG MAIN
STREET, IT'S A NEGATIVE
CORRELATION IN EACH OF THE FOUR
YEARS.
AS GOVERNMENT SPENDING GOES UP,
JOBS ALONG MAIN STREET GO DOWN.
LOOK AT THIS NEXT CHART.
WE ALSO WENT BACK FOUR DECADES
IN AMERICA AND ASKED ABOUT
PRIVATE BUSINESS INVESTMENT AND
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN COMPANIES
LARGE AND SMALL BUY NEW
EQUIPMENT, NEW SOFTWARE, NEW
BUILDINGS.
HERE'S THE CHART.
BLUE IS THE PRIVATE FIXED
DEVELOPMENT FROM BUSINESS, THE
RED IS JOB CREATION ALONG MAIN
STREET AND YOU CAN TELL IT'S A
VERY CLOSE CORRELATION.
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE IN
AMERICA FOR PRIVATE INVESTMENT
IN THE ECONOMY.
NO SUBSTITUTE, NO REBATES, NO
STIMULUS, NOT SHOVEL-READY
PROJECTS, NOTHING IS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR CREATING JOBS BY
GETTING BUSINESSES TO INVEST
BACK IN THEIR WORK FORCE,
WORKPLACE AND THE ECONOMY.
RECENTLY, WE HAD -- I HAD THE
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE LOOK AT
THE LAST 40 YEARS.
ECONOMIC STUDIES OF OUR
COMPETITORS AROUND THE WORLD,
COUNTRIES THAT GOT THEMSELVES IN
DEBT TROUBLE AND HOW THEY WORKED
THEIR WAY OUT OF IT AND YOU
WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE
RESULTS OF THIS STUDY.
WHAT IT SHOWS IS THAT THREE KEY
POINTS TO IT.
ONE IS THAT THE COUNTRIES THAT
WERE MOST SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING
THEIR DEBT DOWN AND GETTING HOLD
OF THEIR FINANCIAL PATH, THEY
DIDN'T DO IT BY RAISING TAXES.
THAT DIDN'T SUCCEED.
THEY DID IT BY REDUCING
SPENDING.
THEY GOT HOLD OF THEIR DEBT.
21 TIMES IN 10 DIFFERENT OF OUR
GLOBAL COMPETITORS, COUNTRIES
GOT A HANDLE ON THEIR DEBT BY
REDUCING SPENDING.
AND THE SECOND THING TO GO TAKE
AWAY FROM THIS SPENDING,
COUNTRIES THAT GOT HOLD OF THEIR
DEBT ALSO GREW THE ECONOMY AS
WELL.
ECONOMISTS AGREE THAT GET THEIR
FINANCIAL HOUSE IN ORDER GROW
THEIR ECONOMY IN THE LONG-TERM.
WITHOUT COMPETITORS, IF YOU GET
A HANDLE ON YOUR SPENDING THE
RIGHT WAY, YOU GROW IN THE
SHORT-TERM AS WELL.
HERE IS CANADA, NEIGHBORING
CANADA GOT THEMSELVES IN
FINANCIAL TROUBLE.
THEIR ECONOMY IS GROWING LESS
THAN 1% A YEAR.
THEY LOWERED THEIR DEBT AS A
NATION ABOUT 12 PERCENTAGE
POINTS, AND THEIR ECONOMY TOOK
OFF.
AND FOR ALMOST 14 YEARS, 16
YEARS, THE AVERAGE ECONOMIC
GROWTH OF ALMOST 3.5%.
SWEDEN, ANOTHER DEVELOPED
COUNTRY WITH A DEVELOPED ECONOMY
LIKE OURS, THEY HAD AN ECONOMY
THAT WAS SHRINKING AND
CONTRACTING.
THEY GOT A HOLD OF THEIR
FINANCIAL HOUSE AND PUT THAT
ORDER AND THEIR ECONOMY TOOK OFF
GROWING 3.5% A YEAR ON AVERAGE
FOR ALMOST A DECADE.
NEW ZEALAND DID THE SAME THING.
AND YOU MAY ASK, WE AREN'T THOSE
COUNTRIES, BUT 26 TIMES IN NINE
OF OUR COMPETITORS, COUNTRIES
THAT LOWERED THEIR DEBT BY
REDUCING THEIR SPENDING AND GREW
THEIR ECONOMY STRONGLY, NOT JUST
LONG-TERM BUT IN THE SHORT-TERM.
THEY DIDN'T GROW IT A LITTLE.
THOSE COUNTRIES ROCKETED TO THE
TOP QUARTER OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
IN THE WORLD.
COUNTRIES THAT REDUCE THEIR
SPENDING DO IT THE RIGHT WAY,
GROW THEIR ECONOMY.
HERE IS ANOTHER THIRD TELLING
POINT ABOUT THIS IS THAT NOT ALL
SPENDING CUTS ARE THE SAME WHEN
IT COMES TIME TO GROW THE
NOT ALL SPENDING CUTS ARE THE
SAME.
WHAT THE ECONOMISTS SHOWED THE
COUNTRIES THAT GREW THEIR
ECONOMIES MOST SUCCESSFULLY TOOK
CUTS THAT WERE LARGE AND
CREDIBLE AND DIFFICULT TO
REVERSE.
THEY TOOK CUTS IN SAVINGS AND
CUTS IN SAVINGS THAT GREW THE
ECONOMY MAKES SENSE.
THEY SLUMPING THEIR FEDERAL WORK
FORCE AND ELIMINATED OBSOLETE
PROGRAMS AS A BUSINESS WOULD,
PROGRAMS THAT WASTE MONEY.
THEY REDUCED SUBSIDIES TO
CORPORATIONS AND INTERFERING IN
THE FREE MARKETPLACE AND TACKLED
THEIR ENTITLEMENT REFORMS AND
WHAT IS INTERESTING THAT EVEN IF
THE REFORMS THEY MADE IN THEIR
ENTITLEMENTS DIDN'T AFFECT THEIR
BENEFICIARIES AND PHASED IN
THOSE REFORMS OVER TIME, IT SENT
THE RIGHT SIGNAL TO THE
MARKETPLACE AND WHAT HAPPENED IN
EACH OF THESE COUNTRIES IS THAT
BUSINESSES NO LONGER FACING
HIGHER TAXES BECAUSE OF ALL THAT
SPENDING BEGAN TO BE COMFORTABLE
TO RE-INVEST INTO THEIR WORK
FORCE AND COUNTRY AND ECONOMY.
HOUSEHOLDS, LIKE OURS, NO LONGER
FACING HIGHER TAXES TO PAY FOR
ALL THE SPENDING SPREES FELT
MORE COMFORTABLE BUYING CARS AND
AS WE KNOW WHEN BUSINESSES
INVEST, JOBS ON MAIN STREET
GROW.
IT'S CLEAR TIME AND TIME AND
TIME AGAIN, LIKE BUSINESSES,
COUNTRIES THAT CAN A -- GET A
HOLD OF THEIR DEBT PUT
THEMSELVES ON A FINANCIAL PATH
THE BUDGET RESOLUTION PRESENTED
TONIGHT BY CHAIRMAN RYAN MEETS
THE TEST THAT SPENDING
REDUCTIONS MUST BE LARGE,
CREDIBLE AND DIFFICULT TO
REVERSE ONCE MADE TO BOOST OUR
ECONOMY.
THE RYAN BUDGET TACKLES THE
ENTITLEMENT, TAX CORPORATE
WELFARE BY PHASING GOVERNMENT
HANDSOUTS AND SUBSIDIES FOR
GREEN ENERGY AND REDUCES
AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES BY $30
BILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
IT ROLLS BACK NONSECURITY
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND
FREEZES IT FOR FIVE YEARS AND
ADOPTS A NUMBER OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
PRESIDENT'S OWN FISCAL
COMMISSION TO ELIMINATE WASTE
AND ACHIEVE REAL SAVINGS.
IT ELIMINATES AGENCIES AS
WASTEFUL AND THAT SAVES OVER
$100 BILLION AND REDUCES THE
FEDERAL WORK FORCE BY 10% IN THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS BY ATTRITION,
SIMPLY BY HIRING ONLY ONE
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE FOR EVERY THREE
EMPLOYEES WHO LEAVE OR RETIRE
AND THAT SAVES ALMOST $400
BILLION.
THE RYAN BUDGET ENVISIONS A
LOWER INCOME TAX RATE FOR
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES TO 25%
AND MAKES US COMPETITIVE AGAIN
IN THIS WORLD.
THE RYAN BUDGET IS A FISCALLY
RESPONSIBLE PLAN THAT
ACCELERATES ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
JOB CREATION.
IT IS A GAME CHANGER FOR THIS
NATION AND TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT
OUR CHALLENGES AND ADDRESSES IT
WITH IDEAS AND PROVEN SOLUTIONS
THAT MOVE US FORWARD.
WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK IS
RECOGNIZED.
I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR FOR
US TO UNDERSTAND AND REMEMBER
HOW THE ECONOMY HERE GREW AND
BECAME MUCH MORE POSITIVE AND
PROGRESSIVE DURING THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION, DURING THOSE
EIGHT YEARS.
THE DEFICIT THAT
CLINTON INHERITED WHEN HE WENT
INTO OFFICE WAS DRAMATICALLY
REDUCED AND BROUGHT BACK A
SURPLUS WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE.
AND WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE, THE
NATIONAL DEBT WAS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF ABOUT A LITTLE
OVER $5 TRILLION.
BY THE TIME THE NEXT PRESIDENT,
GEORGE W. BUSH LEFT, THE DEFICIT
WAS ABOUT $10.7 TRILLION.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US NOT TO
HAVE THE SAME KIND OF EXPERIENCE
NOW THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET
PUSHED TO US BY THE OPPOSITION
HERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
THE MOST CRITICAL CHALLENGE THAT
WE FACE AS A COUNTRY OF COURSE
IS THE NEED TO CREATE NEW JOBS.
IF CONGRESS HOPES TO GET THE
ECONOMY MOVING AT THE RIGHT
PACE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
TAKE THIS CHALLENGE FOR JOB
CREATION VERY SERIOUSLY.
THE QUESTION IS, WHAT SHOULD WE
DO AND WHAT SHOULD WE NOT DO TO
REFORM GOVERNMENT SO WE CAN
BETTER COMPETE IN THE WORLD
ECONOMY AND YIELD STRONG,
SUSTAINABLE, LONG-TERM GROWTH
AND PROSPERITY.
AFTER 100 DAYS, REPUBLICANS HAVE
FAILED TO PUT FORWARD A SINGLE
PLAN TO CREATE JOBS.
INSTEAD, THEY HAVE LAID OUT A
BUDGET PLAN THAT SHOWS US
EXACTLY WHAT NOT TO DO.
WE MUST REMEMBER HOW WE GOT INTO
THIS BUDGET MESS IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
WHILE MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE WOULD LIKE TO PRETEND THAT
OUR ECONOMIC WOES BEGAN THE VERY
SECOND THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK
HIS HAND OFF THE BIBLE AND WAS
SWORN INTO OFFICE, WE KNOW THAT
THAT'S NOT THE TRUTH AT ALL.
IN FACT, IT WAS QUITE THE
OPPOSITE, THE THINGS THAT HE DID
AS PRESIDENT WERE POSITIVE FOR
THE ECONOMY AND WE'RE SEEING
THAT TODAY.
WE'RE SEEING THE ECONOMY
GROWING.
WE'RE SEEING UNEMPLOYMENT
DECLINING.
WE'RE SEEING EMPLOYMENT GOING
UP, ALL OF THAT HAS A POSITIVE
EFFECT OF THE ACTIONS OF THIS
PRESIDENT.
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE
PUSHING THIS BUDGET ARE THE SAME
PEOPLE WHO CARRIED PRESIDENT
BUSH'S BUDGET THROUGH CONGRESS
AND IN DOING SO, NEARLY DOUBLED
OUR NATIONAL DEBT, AS I SAID
FROM $5.7 TRILLION TO $10.7
TRILLION OVER THE BUSH
PRESIDENCY.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEY AREN'T
ABLE TO DO THAT AGAIN.
THEY DID SO BY RECKLESSLY
LOWERING TAXES ON THE WEALTHY
WITH THE PROMISE THAT DOING SO
WOULD CREATE JOBS AND STRENGTHEN
OUR ECONOMY.
WELL, WE KNOW THAT NEITHER OF
THOSE HAPPENED.
IN FACT, JUST THE OPPOSITE
OCCURRED.
THEY DID SO BY PASSING A
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN, THAT IS
A MAJOR GIVEAWAY TO THE
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WITHOUT
FINDING A WAY TO PAY FOR IT AND
THEY DID SO BY TAKING US INTO
IRAQ UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND
COMMITTING US TO WHAT WILL
ULTIMATELY BE SEVERAL TRILLIONS
OF DOLLARS.
NOW WE ARE SEEING ECONOMIC
INEQUALITY AT RECORD LEVELS.
THE WEALTHIEST 10% OF THE
POPULATION HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA RECEIVES
NEARLY HALF OF ALL INCOME IN OUR
AND THE RICHEST 1% HAS SEEN ITS
SHARE OF THE NATIONAL INCOME
INCREASE BY NEARLY 10% AND THEY
ARE NOW AT ABOUT 35% OF ALL
INCOME.
ALL OF THAT INCREASING FOR THE
RICHEST AND DECLINING FOR
WORKING PEOPLE ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY.
THIS TREND HAS CONSEQUENCES AND
IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT WE SAW
INQUALITY AT THIS LEVEL WAS
DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION IN
THE 1930'S.
BUT INSTEAD OF WORKING TO
CORRECT THIS PROBLEM THIS IS A
HUGE WEALTH TRANSFER PROGRAM
FROM WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS TO
THE RICH.
OVERALL, 2/3 OF THE CUTS THE
REPUBLICANS PROPOSE TAKE DEAD
AIM AT WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS
TO LOWER THEIR ECONOMY AND LOWER
THEIR ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
THE REPUBLICANS' BUDGET PLAN
ELIMINATES MEDICARE, FORCING
SENIORS TO BUY INSURANCE IN THE
PRIVATE MARKETPLACE, USING A
COUPON THAT BARELY COVERS A
FRACTION OF THE COST OF CARE.
IT CUTS FOOD STAMPS, PELL GRANTS
AND LOW-INCOME HOUSING AND AT
THE SAME TIME OUR FRIENDS ACROSS
THE AISLE HERE, THEIR PLAN WOULD
GIVE AWAY $2.9 TRILLION IN TAX
CUTS TO THE HUGEST, BIGGEST
CORPORATIONS AND TO THE
WEALTHIEST AMERICANS.
THIS IS THE EXACT WRONG APPROACH
AND IT WILL SEVERELY DAMAGE OUR
ECONOMY, HURT THE MIDDLE CLASS
CITIZENS.
LET'S LOOK AT HOW THIS PLAN
HURTS SENIORS.
THEIR BUDGET ELIMINATES
MEDICARE.
IT ELIMINATES MEDICARE AND
A NEW VOUCHER PROGRAM
THAT WOULD SADDLE SENIORS WITH A
LARGE PORTION OF THEIR HEALTH
CARE COSTS.
THEY WOULD THEN BE MORE
RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
AND THE WHOLE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
WOULD DECLINE.
THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET ALSO MAKES
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS MORE
EXPENSIVE FOR SENIORS.
THE HEALTH CARE LAW WE PASSED
LAST YEAR IS GRADUALLY
ELIMINATING THE GAPS IN
PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE.
THE REPUBLICAN PLAN UNDOES THIS
ESSENTIAL REFORM, FORCING
SENIORS TO PAY OUT OF POCKET.
REPUBLICAN BUDGET ALSO THREATENS
TO MAKE NURSING HOME CARE
UNAFFORDABLE BY CUTTING $771
BILLION FROM MEDICAID, OVER A
10-YEAR PERIOD.
MEDICAID CURRENTLY COVERS NEARLY
HALF OF ALL LONG-TERM CARE COSTS
AND WE KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF
THEIR PLAN WAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
ALL OF THAT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY
ELIMINATED.
THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET ALSO CUTS
$10 BILLION FROM SOCIAL
SECURITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET
WHICH WOULD IMPACT SERVICE TO
SENIORS.
WHAT THIS PLAN DOES TO AMERICA'S
UNACCEPTABLE.
BUT THE WORST PART OF IT IS THAT
WHILE THEY CUT MEDICARE AND
MEDICAID AND THEY CUT
THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, THEY ALSO CUT
TAXES ON THE VERY WEALTHY,
REDUCING SUBSTANTIALLY THE
AMOUNT OF TAXES THAT THE
WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY PAY.
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME RAISING
TAXES ON EVERYONE ELSE.
NOW, 10 YEARS AGO THE
CONSERVATIVE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
PROJECTED THAT IN 2011 1.6
MILLION MORE AMERICANS WOULD BE
WORKING AS A RESULT OF THE BUSH
THEY WERE WRONG.
THEY WERE WRONG THEN AND THEY
ARE WRONG NOW.
WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THEN.
JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY
PREDICTED.
THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE ISN'T
ABOUT GOOD POLICY OR THE FACTS.
IT'S ABOUT A DAGMATIC APPROACH
TO GOVERNING AND DOING WHAT'S
BEST FOR THE VERY RICH, DOING
WHAT'S BEST FOR THE VERY RICH,
REGARDLESS OF HOW IT AFFECTS
EVERYONE ELSE.
WHO ARE THE MAIN PROMOTERS OF
THE ECONOMY.
WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, MIDDLE
INCOME PEOPLE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO
DRIVE THE ECONOMIC GROWTH HERE
IN AMERICA.
IF THEY ARE FORCED TO DECLINE
THEIR ECONOMIC CONDITIONS THEN
THE WHOLE ECONOMY OF THIS
COUNTRY DECLINES.
ALL OF THAT IS NEEDED TO BE
UNDERSTOOD.
AND THE ACTIONS THAT THEY ARE
PROPOSING MUST BE AVOIDED.
EVEN PRESIDENT RANGE'S BUDGET
DIRECTOR -- REAGAN'S BUDGET
DIRECTOR RECENTLY SAID THAT HE
FINDS IT, AND I QUOTE WHAT HE
SAID, HE FINDS IT UNCONSCIONABLE
THAT THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
FACED WITH A $1.5 TRILLION
DEFICIT COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE
THAT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY IS TO
MAINTAIN TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP 2%
OF THE POPULATION.
WE KNOW THAT THAT ISN'T THE
CASE.
WE KNOW THAT IS GOING TO BE JUST
WE KNOW THAT TAX CUTS FOR THE
WEALTHIEST MAKING THE WEALTHIEST
PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY EVEN
WEALTHIER AND DRIVING DOWN THE
ECONOMY OF THE WORKING PEOPLE IS
GOING TO HAVE A DEADLY EFFECT ON
THE ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
TAX RATES ARE NOW LOWER THAN
THEY WERE, EVEN UNDER PRESIDENT
AND YET THE REPUBLICANS ARE
ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO CUT TAXES
AGAIN FOR THE VERY RICH.
LOWER THE CORPORATE RATE AND
KEEP SPECIAL TAX EARMARKS FOR
BIG OIL, TAX EARMARKS FOR BIG
OIL, WHICH IS NOW GROWING TO BE
ONE OF THE HIGHEST GROWING
ECONOMIC ASPECT OF THIS COUNTRY
THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
TAX EARMARKS FOR BIG OIL AND FOR
THE BIGGEST COMPANIES.
AND THE BIGGEST COMPANIES
PARTICULARLY THAT EXPORT
AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS.
CONTINUING TO GIVE TAX CUTS TO
THOSE ECONOMIC COMPANIES THAT
TAKE JOBS OUT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND EXPORTS THEM TO OTHER
COUNTRIES.
WHAT A BIG MISTAKE THAT IS.
IN THE CONTEXT OF RESCINDING
THIS ECONOMY.
OVERALL THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET
PLAN FOR 2012 WILL NOT BALANCE
THE BUDGET AND WHILE IT DOES NOT
BALANCE THE BUDGET, IT
ELIMINATES MEDICARE BY REPLACING
IT WITH A PRIVATE VOUCHER
PROGRAM THAT WILL MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR SENIORS TO GET
HEALTH CARE.
IT ALSO PROVIDES HUGE NEW TAX
BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY WHILE
CUTTING KEY INVESTMENTS IN OUR
ECONOMY.
ALL OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT WE
ARE FACING HERE ARE CLEARLY
DEADLY.
IF THEY WERE TO BE SUCCESSFUL,
THE ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
IS NOW JUST GETTING BETTER IN
THIS ECONOMY AS A RESULT OF THE
ACTIONS BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE REVERSED
AND IT WOULD BE REVERSED
DRAMATICALLY AND WE WOULD SEE A
DOWNSLIDE IN THE ECONOMIC
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE IN OUR
COUNTRY.
WE NEED TO OPPOSE THIS
EFFECTIVELY AND WE NEED TO HAVE
A POLICY THAT IS GOING TO FOCUS
ITS ATTENTION ON WORKING CLASS
PEOPLE, ON THE NEEDS TO CREATE
MORE JOBS AND TO CREATE MORE
JOBS MORE EFFECTIVELY.
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS IS
I YIELD MYSELF 30
SECONDS.
I WOULD REMIND THE LISTENERS
THAT IT WAS DEMOCRATS WHO FOUGHT
THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM
FOR OUR SENIORS.
LAST YEAR SLASHED $100 TRILLION
FROM OUR SENIORS' PROGRAMS WHICH
WILL HURT OUR LOCAL HOSPITALS,
OUR NURSING HOMES, OUR HOSPICE
PROGRAMS.
THEY'RE GOING TO DRIVE SEVEN
MILLION AMERICAN SENIORS OUT OF
THEIR MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN
AND YET THEY FAILED TO LEAD, TO
PRESERVE MEDICARE FOR EVERY
GENERATION ONCE AND FOR ALL.
THEY FAILED, WE'RE GOING TO LEAD
AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO YIELD
THREE MINUTES TO NEW MEMBER OF
THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE AND
ONE OF THE LEADERS -- NOT AT
THIS TIME.
AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO
YIELD THREE MINUTES TO ONE OF
OUR NEW LEADERS ON THE JOINT
ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, THE
MR. MULVANEY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
YOU KNOW, WHEN I TRAVELED MY
DISTRICT, I'VE TRIED TO FIGURE
OUT A WAY TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE
AND TO MYSELF HOW TO MAKE SENSE
OUT OF THESE TRILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AND I DO IT THIS WAY.
I PUT IT IN NUMBERS THAT I CAN
UNDERSTAND.
I TELL FOLKS TO ASSUME YOU HAVE
YEAR.
AND YOU SIT DOWN AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE YEAR TO DO YOUR
BUDGET AND WHEN YOU ADD UP ALL
OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SPEND
MONEY ON, YOU'RE SPENDING
AND THEN I ASK THEM, WHEN YOU'RE
DOING THAT, YOU'RE MAKING
$46,000, YOU'RE SPENDING
$78,000, I WANT TO YOU REALIZE
THE VISA BILL IN THE DRAWER IS
NATION.
AND I TELL THEM, AS WE TRY AND
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO SAVE MONEY,
I REMIND THEM THAT THE FAST
THING WE DID IN THIS CONGRESS
WAS CUT $35 MILLION FROM OUR OWN
BUDGETS TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
WE CUT OUR OWN BUDGETS IN THIS
HOUSE BY $35 MILLION.
IN THAT WORLD WHERE YOU'RE
SPENDING $46,000 AND YOU'RE
SPENDING $78,000, UCKS KEYS ME,
YOU'RE MAKING $46,000 AND
SPENDING $78,000, THAT $35
MILLION REPRESENTS $70 CENTS.
THAT'S HOW BIG THE NUMBERS ARE.
AND I THINK FOLKS BACK HOME HAVE
STARTED TO GRASP IT.
I CERTAINLY HAVE STARTED TO
BUT I DO GIVE GOOD QUESTIONS
WHEN I GIVE THAT PRESENTATION.
SOME FOLKS WILL ASK ME, THEY
SAY, IF I WAS IN THAT POSITION,
NOT ONLY WOULD I TRY TO CUT
EXPENDITURES BUT I'D GET ANOTHER
JOB.
I SAID, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD
POINT AND THAT'S WHAT MOST
FAMILIES WOULD DO.
WITH GOVERNMENT IT'S DIFFERENT.
WITH GOVERNMENT THE ONLY CHANCE
THEY HAVE TO GET THAT ADDITIONAL
JOB, TO GET MORE MONEY TO COME
IN IS TO RAISE TAXES.
AND WHEN I TELL THEM, WHEN THEY
ASK AND SAY, WHY DON'T WE RAISE
TAXES?
I SAY, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK.
IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK.
IT HAS NEVER WORKED.
THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE TOP
MARGINAL TAX RATES GOING BACK TO
THE 1950'S, FOR THOSE OF WHO YOU
WERE AROUND OR STUDIED THE AREA,
THE TOP MARGINAL RATES IN THE
1950'S WERE ABOVE 90%.
THE TOP MARGINAL INCOME TAX IN
THE 1950'S WAS ABOVE 90%.
AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS STILL
ONLY ABLE TO TAKE FROM THE
ECONOMY ABOUT 20% OF THE
ECONOMY.
18.5% IS THE AVERAGE OVER THE
COURSE OF THE LAST 50 YEARS.
SO EVEN WHEN TAX RATES WERE AS
HIGH AS 90%, THE GOVERNMENT TOOK
ONLY ABOUT 18%, 19% OF THE
ECONOMY OUT IN TAXES.
THAT NUMBER HAS STAYED BIZARRELY
STABLE OVER THE COURSE OF THE
LAST 50 YEARS.
WE'VE LOWERED MARGINAL TAX
RATES, WE'VE RAISED MARGINAL TAX
RATES YET THE GOVERNMENT ONLY
TAKES OUT 18%, 19%, AT THE MOST,
20%.
RAISING TAXES DOES NOT BRING IN
OVER THE LONG HAUL.
IT MAY FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF
TIME, IT MAY FOR A YEAR OR TWO,
STATIC MODEL.
THE WORLD WORKS ON A DYNAMIC
MODEL.
WHEN YOU RAISE TAXES THE ECONOMY
GROWS SLOWER AND EVENTUALLY WE
GET BACK TO THIS 18.5%, 19%
AVERAGE.
BY THE WAY, I MADE THIS
PRESENTATION IN A DEBATE TO A
FORMER MEMBER OF THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION AND THE MODERATOR
AFTER I HAD MENTIONED THAT WE'VE
NEVER BEEN ABLE TO GET MORE THAN
18%, 19% OF THE ECONOMY TURNED
TO THE MEMBER OF THED A STRACE
AND SAID, IS THAT TRUE?
AND THE MEMBER OF THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION SAID, HE'S
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WEEK NOT BEEN
ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WAY TO DO IT
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EVEN WITH HIGH TOP MARGINAL TAX
RATES BUT THEY DO IT IN EUROPE.
THEY DO IT IN EUROPE AND IN
EUROPE THE GOVERNMENTS CAN GET
30%, 40%, EVEN 50% OF THE
ECONOMY AWAY FROM THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, AWAY FROM PEOPLE AND PUT
GOVERNMENT.
I YIELD THE GENTLEMAN
AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
AND I PUT IT TO
YOU, THAT'S WHAT THIS DEBATE IS
REALLY ABOUT.
THAT'S WHEN WHAT THIS DEBATE IS
ARE WE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE
AMERICAN SYSTEM OR ARE WE TRYING
TO MOVE TOWARDS A EUROPEAN
SYSTEM?
AND I TELL YOU THAT THAT'S
REALLY WHAT THIS FIGHT IS ALL
ABOUT.
AND THE BUDGET THAT WE'RE HERE
DEFENDING TONIGHT AS MEMBERS OF
THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE IS
A BUDGET THAT DEFENDS THE
AMERICAN SYSTEM.
THAT DEFENDS A SYSTEM THAT SAYS,
THE GOVERNMENT REALLY SHOULD
ONLY TAKE 18% OR 19% AWAY FROM
THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
THAT THAT'S ENOUGH.
THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE EUROPE.
WHERE PEOPLE PAY ADDITIONAL,
MUCH HIGHER RATES OF TAXATION.
THE GOVERNMENT TAKES 30%, 40% OR
50% AND WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS
OFFERING A EUROPEAN-STYLE MODEL.
SO I SIMPLY ASK MY FRIENDS ON
BOTH SIDES TO CONSIDER WHAT KIND
OF COUNTRY WE WANT TO BE.
DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE ON AS THE
AMERICA THAT WE'VE KNOWN FOR
YEARS OR DO WE WANT TO BECOME
EUROPE AND I SUGGEST, MADAM
CHAIR, THAT THE FORMER IS THE
BETTER COURSE OF ACTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK IS
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MR. GARAMENDI.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION
HERE THIS EVENING ABOUT WHAT
ECONOMIC POLICY WORKS WHERE,
WHERE DO THE DEFICITS COME FROM.
LET'S JUST FIGURE IT OUT.
BEGINNING WITH THIS MAN OVER
HERE, I THINK WE'D ALL RECOGNIZE
HIM, THAT WOULD BE RONALD
REAGAN.
THE YEAR THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE, NONPARTISAN,
MAKES A PROJECTION OF WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT 10
YEARS.
AT THE END OF RONALD REAGAN'S
PERIOD, THEY DID THEIR
PROJECTION AND THEY SAID, A $1.4
TRILLION DEFICIT IN THE YEARS
AHEAD.
FOLLOWED BY GEORGE BUSH THE
SENIOR AT THE END OF HIS FOUR
YEARS THEY DID ANOTHER ESTIMATE.
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE
NEXT 10 YEARS?
LET'S SEE, THAT SAYS $3.3
TRILLION DEFICIT.
HOW ABOUT THAT?
WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT SOME
ECONOMIC POLICY HERE A MINUTE
AGO.
WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE
CLINTON PERIOD.
AT THE END OF THE CLINTON
PERIOD, EIGHT YEARS, ANOTHER
PROJECTION WAS MADE BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE
NEXT 10 YEARS?
A $5.6 TRILLION SURPLUS, ENOUGH
TO PAY OFF ALL OF THE AMERICAN
DEBT.
HOW DID IT HAPPEN?
HOW DID IT HAPPEN?
IT HAPPENED THIS WAY.
EARLY IN HIS ADMINISTRATION THEY
SET ABOUT TO DEAL WITH THE
DEFICIT.
THERE WAS A TAX INCREASE, IT
COST MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES
THE HOUSE.
BUT THEY DID IT.
THEY PUT IT IN PLACE.
AND THEY ALSO PUT IN PLACE
PAY-GO AND THE BALANCE BUDGET
AMENDMENT.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT IN THOSE
EIGHT YEARS WAS THE LARGEST JOB
GROWTH IN AMERICA'S HISTORY
EXCEPT IN THE 1950-1960 PERIOD.
IT WAS AN ENORMOUS JOB GROWTH,
MORE THAN 20 MILLION JOBS WERE
CREATED AND EXTRAORDINARY
REVENUE GROWTH.
SO MUCH FOR THE ARGUMENT WE JUST
HEARD.
IN FACT, A COMBINATION OF
HOLDING TITLE ON THE BUDGET --
TIGHT ON THE BUDGET TOGETHER
WITH A TAX INCREASE WORKED.
NOW, I WAS PART OF THAT
ADMINISTRATION AND WE WERE TOLD
TO REINVENT GOVERNMENT, WE DID,
AT THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR WE
REDUCED THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
FROM 90 TO 75,000 AND WE
MAINTAINED AND INCREASED THE
OF THAT DEPARTMENT.
IT CAN AND IT WAS DONE.
HOWEVER, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT
GEORGE W. BUSH.
MOST RECENT BUSH PRESIDENCY AT
THE END OF HIS PRESIDENCY,
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET DID THEIR
ESTIMATE AND THEY CAME UP WITH
AN $11.5 TRILLION DEFICIT IN THE
YEARS AHEAD.
HOW DID IT HAPPEN?
IT HAPPENED THIS WAY.
HE CUT TAXES YEAR ONE.
CUT TAXES.
YEAR TWO, 2002, CUT TAXES.
TWO WARS UNPAID FOR, BORROWED
MONEY FROM CHINA AND THEN BACKED
AWAY FROM ALL REGULATION OF WALL
STREET AND THE GREAT CRASH.
THE RESULT IN THE $11.5 TRILLION
DEFICIT.
THE DAY BARACK OBAMA CAME INTO
OFFICE HE WAS HANDED AN $11 -- A
$1.3 TRILLION BILL DUE.
THAT'S WHAT THE REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT GAVE TO THIS NATION
AND TO THIS CONGRESS.
SO WE'VE SET ABOUT SOLVING IT.
I WANT TO MOVE TO ANOTHER ISSUE
HERE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THIS
DEBATE ABOUT MEDICARE.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE
MEDICARE PROBLEM WHICH IS ONE OF
EVER-INCREASING COST IN THE
UNDERLYING HEALTH SECTOR OF
AMERICA.
WHEN I FIRST BECAME -- GOT INTO
THIS IN 1991 AS INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER, 9% OF THE AMERICAN
ECONOMY WAS IN MEDICAL SERVICES.
THIS YEAR IT'S APPROACHING 18%.
YOU CANNOT SOLVE THIS PROBLEM BY
THROWING SENIOR CITIZENS OFF
MEDICARE.
IT DOES NOT SOLVE IT.
DO NOT THROW THE SENIORS TO THE
WOLVES.
THE WOLVES ARE THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES, I KNOW, I WAS THE
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER FOR EIGHT
YEARS AND I THOUGHT THOSE --
YEAR I WAS IN OFFICE.
I KNOW WHAT THEY WILL DO TO
SENIORS.
THEY WILL RIP THEM OFF, THEY
WILL DENY BENEFITS, THEY WILL
DENY COVERAGE AND THEY WILL NOT
CONTROL COST.
IN CALIFORNIA THIS YEAR THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE RAISING
COSTS BY 20% TO 40%.
MEDICARE WENT UP 6%.
MEDICARE IS EFFICIENT.
MEDICARE IS EFFICIENT.
IT IS A NATIONWIDE POLICY.
YOU CAN GET IT ANYWHERE IN THIS
NATION.
THERE IS NO ADMINISTRATIVE COST
THAT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO WHAT
THE INSURANCE COMPANIES'
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE.
PERHAPS 30% OF THE PREMIUM.
PROFIT, SALES EXPENSES, ALL OF
THOSE THINGS ADDED UP AND THAT
INCLUDES THE CHAOS AT THE
DELIVERY, THE MEDICAL DELIVERY.
WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT.
YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH SOMETHING
MORE?
THIS IS MEDICAID.
IN MEDICAID THE REPUBLICAN
BUDGET INTENDS TO CUT MEDICAID
BY 3/4 OF $1 TRILLION IN THE
NEXT DECADE.
WHO GETS MEDICAID?
SENIOR CITIZENS, THE DISABLED.
THIS IS IMMEDIATE.
I YIELD THE GENTLEMAN
ANOTHER MINUTE.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ANOTHER MINUTE.
WHO GETS
MEDICAID?