THE CBO SCORE CAME OUT AND THIS WOULD ACTUALLY ADD TO THE
DEFICIT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THIS OFFSET CAN ACTUALLY COST MORE?
QUIT THE FIRST THING IS THE HOUSE IS SAYING IN ORDER TO PAY
FOR EMERGENCY SPENDING FOR SOMETHING THEY SUPPORT, AID TO
ISRAEL, WE NEED TO FIND OFFSETS. THAT 100% MAKES SENSE.
WHERE THE LOGIC BREAKS DOWN IS THEY HAVE TAKEN FUNDING AWAY
FROM THE IRS AND THIS FUNDING IS TARGETED TO CLOSE SOMETHING
CALLED THE TAX GAP. THOSE ARE TAXES OWED BUT NOT
PAID. THOSE RESOURCES ARE GOING TO
INCREASE THE COLLECTION OF TAXES IN A WAY THAT ACTUALLY
GENERATES MORE MONEY THAN THE
COST. THIS WOULD LEAD TO ACTUALLY MAKING THE DEFICIT
MORE WORSE, NOT BETTER.
THUMBS UP FOR MAKING EMERGENCY SPENDING A BIGGER THING.
I THUMBS DOWN FOR DOING SO WITH THE SO-CALLED OFFSET WHICH
WOULD INVOLVE MAKING THE REV YOU SITUATION AND DEFICIT WORSE.
>> WHEN THE CBS COURT CAME OUT, YOU WERE THE FIRST PERSON WE
THOUGHT OF. I POINTED TO THE IRS COMMISSIONER.
DANIEL SAID THESE OFFSETS WOULD NOT ONLY ADD TO THE DEFICIT IN
THE STYLE OF THE CBO BUT WOULD END UP COSTING $90 BILLION
BECAUSE OF THE LOWER SCRUTINY ON WHAT HE CALLS TAX EVASION AT
THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF WEALTH.
I WOULD ASK YOU WHAT OTHER OFFSETS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE?
THERE IS ALL KINDS OF UNSPENT MONEY THAT COULD BE USED.
>> 100%. WE ARE PUTTING OUT A LIST OF
POTENTIAL OFFSETS THAT COULD GO FOR ALL OF THE SPENDING PEOPLE
ARE LOOKING AT FROM ISRAEL TO UKRAINE.
WE COULD LOOK AT A NUMBER OF AREAS OF HEALTH CARE SAVING.
WE CAN BRING THE SPENDING CAPS DOWN BY JUST A TINY AMOUNT OR
WE COULD INCREASE REVENUE. SAY YOU HAVE AN OFFSET REVENUE
INCREASE WITH A PERCENT IS JUST ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASE ON
INCOME TAXES OR CORPORATE INCOME TAXES.
THE BASIC POINT IS YOU GO BACK TO THE NOTION OF BUDGETING.
IF THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON TAKING AWAY
SOME OF PRESIDENT BIDEN'S RECENT INITIATIVES, THERE ARE
THINGS THEY COULD LOOK AT, THE IRS MONEY MOVES US BACKWARDS
BUT THE STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS ISSUES THAT HE JUST
PUT OUT, THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL SAVINGS IN A POLICY THEY DO NOT AGREE TO.
OFFSET ARE HARD. THAT MEANS RAISING TAXES OR
CUTTING SPENDING. THAT IS HOW YOU BUDGET.
IT REALLY IS IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO PUT MORE LISTS OF
OFFSETS AT THROUGH THE COMING WEEKS TO HELP CONGRESS IF
THEY'RE ACTUALLY WILLING TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS WHICH WOULD BE
AN IMPORTANT TOURNAMENT ON THEIR PART.
>> TODAY WE HEARD FROM MIKE JOHNSON ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 17
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. WE TALKED ABOUT A LADDER
APPROACH FOR CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS OR TO KEEP THE
GOVERNMENT OPEN. DO YOU THINK THAT COULD WORK?
>> BASICALLY THERE IS THE ISSUE THAT CONGRESS ONLY MOVES WITH
ACTION FORCING MOMENTS. THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO PUT
PRESSURE POINTS TO MAKE DECISIONS TO PASS
APPROPRIATIONS . THEY ARE PASSING APPROPRIATIONS
BILLS ONE AT A TIME. NOT GOING TO THE BIG BUSES THAT
IF IT WAS SPENDING THAT PEOPLE DON'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT.
THESE ARE REQUESTS GOING BACK TO REGULAR ORDER.
DOING BUDGETS MAKES AN ABSOLUTE TON OF SENSE.
THEY ONLY MAKE DECISIONS BY FORCING MOMENTS.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.
WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR GOVERNING PRICES.
THIS SOLUTION TO ME SEEMS LIKE INPUT IN MORE CRISES.
STARTING WITH CONGRESS NEEDS TO PASS A BUDGET EVERY YEAR.
THIS YEAR, THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE DID PUT OUT A
COMMITTEE BUT MUCH LATER THAN THE DEADLINE.
THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE NEVER EVEN BOTHERED.
THE REAL WAY TO START THIS IS INSISTENT ON THE BUDGET
PROCESS, PUTTING IN PLACE AUTOMATIC CHANGES.
THESE ONGOING DEADLINES, THE INNER BEING POLITICAL SHOWDOWNS
BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE REDEFINED THE CONCEPT OF JOB
SECURITY HERE.
PRODUCERS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE MATH WHILE TALKING.
I SUSPECT THERE IS A PARTY HAPPENING.
20 YEARS AGO, LOOK AT THIS. UNDER $7 TRILLION OF NATIONAL
DEBT. I'M SURE I DON'T NEED TO TELL
YOU, YOU WERE ABOUT $33 TRILLION NOW.
THAT IS 23 YEARS OF WORK, WHEN YOU'RE SALIVATING YOUR 40TH,
WHERE WILL IT BE?
>> CAN WE GO WITH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE? I DON'T KNOW.
IT HAS NOT BEEN IMPRESSIVE IN TERMS OF OUR FISCAL SITUATION.
I DO SEE THIS AS A DISTURBING CORRELATION.
>> I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT. IT COULD ALWAYS BE WORSE.
IS THE ISSUE DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS TOO MUCH SPENDING
OR IS THERE ACTUAL LEGISLATURES DO NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH THE
NORMAL PROCESS.
>> THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN BIG GOVERNMENT OR SMALL GOVERNMENT.
IT IS PAYING FOR THE GOVERNMENT YOU WANT.
IF YOU ARE A BIG SPENDER AND YOU WANT A MUCH LARGER
GOVERNMENT, YOU CAN BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AS LONG AS YOU ARE
WILLING TO PAY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS.
YOU CAN ONLY GET THERE BY CUTTING SPENDING.
THE KEY IS WHAT WE'RE ARE DOING IN TERMS OF BORROWING.
RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN A BAD HABIT OF BORROWING WHEN WE NEED TO
LIKE COVID.
UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN, UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP, BOTH PRESIDENT
OVERSAW A HUGE RUN TO THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE
NATIONAL DEBT WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS STRONG AND THERE IS NO
ECONOMIC REASON TO BORROW.
WE ARE IN THE HABIT OF BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES LIKE AN IDIOT.
THEY DON'T LIKE TO PAY FOR THINGS.
MAKING UP JUSTIFICATIONS ABOUT WHY IT IS OK AND NOW I THINK
THE ADDED CHALLENGE THAT I THINK THAT SO MUCH WORSE.
WE ARE SO POLARIZED. BOTH PARTIES REALLY HAVE A
DIFFICULT TIME COOPERATING. THE ONLY TIME WE CAN SEE
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION -- I WILL TRADE YOU MY BORROWING FOR
YOUR BORROWING. CAN WE DOUBLE DOWN ON BORROWING?
FOR ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS, WE NEED TO
RETURN TO A WILLINGNESS TO BUDGET, PAY FOR THE INITIATIVES
-- WE CAN SPEND MORE IF WE WANT TO TAX MORE AND SPEND MORE
ELSEWHERE BUT NOT BORROW IN A WAY THAT IS UNDERMINING THE
FISCAL HEALTH OF OUR COUNTRY.
>> WHO WAS THE WORST OFFENDER IN YOUR 20 YEARS?
>> I FINALLY LEARNED TO BE DIPLOMATIC AFTER TWO DECADES OF
THIS. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE.