Pages

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Conservative Christian Group Calls on Vitter To Resign (Yes, You Read That Right)



Author image
by Jodi Jacobson, Editor-in-Chief, RH Reality Check
June 21, 2011 - 6:27pm (Print)



PoliticsUSA reports this afternoon that the president of the christian conservative Family Policy Network, "a group best known for confronting homosexuals and telling them their ways of life are making Jeebus cry," sent a letter to Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) today calling on him to follow the lead of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and resign.
"It’s kinda scary that it took a christian fundamentalist group to point out the hypocrisy," writes Michael Hayne, "but I guess there are miracles."
According to Hayne, Family Policy Network President Joe Glover added in his letter that Republicans “are committing outright hypocrisy” as long Vitter remains in office.
There are a lot of people that I think are committing outright hypocrisy and are forced to do so as long as he (Vitter) remains in office,” said Joe Glover, the president of the Family Policy Network, based in Forest, Va. “I don’t think the senator should put those folks in the untenable position of having to pragmatically defend his presence in the Senate.”
Glover noted, for example, that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had called on Weiner to resign, but had also contributed to Vitter’s 2010 re-election campaign.








Christian Conservative Group Demands That David Vitter Resign

June 21, 2011
By Michael Hayne



Even though it was primarily Democrats who were the most vocal in demanding Anthony Weiner’s resignation, the chairman of the Republican National Committee called for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign from Congress, saying no investigation was necessary “to know he lied and acted inappropriately.” Apparently repeatedly and unlawfully hooking up with prostitutes, playing footsie with cops in airport bathrooms, and divorcing your cancer-stricken wife while screwing staffers while prosecuting another man’s infidelity because he’s a Democrat are just fine and dandy with the party of Do as I say, not as I Do. The GOP really does take its cues from Fox News.
But something other than mercury must be in the air after it was revealed that the president of the christian conservative Family Policy Network–a group best known for confronting homosexuals and telling them their ways of life are making Jeebus cry–sent a letter to Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) today calling on him to follow the lead of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and resign. It’s kinda scary that it took a christian fundamentalist group to point out the hypocrisy, but I guess there are miracles.

There are a lot of people that I think are committing outright hypocrisy and are forced to do so as long as he (Vitter) remains in office,” said Joe Glover, the president of the Family Policy Network, based in Forest, Va. “I don’t think the senator should put those folks in the untenable position of having to pragmatically defend his presence in the Senate.”
Glover noted, for example, that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had called on Weiner to resign, but had also contributed to Vitter’s 2010 re-election campaign.
So while Anthony Weiner received a fusillade of irate condemnation by Democrats and Republicans alike, Diaper Boy was completely let off the hook. Not only was he left off the hook, but he received a coordinated campaign of support from Louisiana Republicans and campaign donations from national Republican leaders — the same leaders who demanded Weiner’s resignation.
Never has there been so much clarity from a religious group, and hopefully their biggest supporters in the Republican Party will heed their advice.

The group sent a  letter to Diaper boy calling on him to follow the lead of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and resign. Senator Vitter admitted (in gangsta rapper fashion) to frequenting prostitutes in 2007, but did not step down and, unlike Weiner, faced little if any pressure from the Republican Party. Who knows, maybe they were just happy that he did it with an adult woman. In fact, Republicans are backing Senator Vitter’s reelection as vigorously as they were demanding the resignation of Weiner. The hypocrisy makes your eyes bleed. 
Family Policy Network President Joe Glover added in his letter that Republicans “are committing outright hypocrisy” as long Vitter remains in office.

The Fiscal Pledge We Need: Cut, Cap, Balance


The U.S. debt is now above its current limit of $14.3 trillion, a figure so large that it is nearly impossible for the average American to comprehend.
Under the budget proposed by President Obama for 2012, the debt would rise to $25.7 trillion in 2021. The annual interest alone would be about $700 billion, and that would only increase with inflation. President Obama's proposed budget was so excessive and fiscally irresponsible that it was voted down in the Senate 97-0.
In spite of these facts, President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress still want to increase the national debt limit without making meaningful spending cuts or reforms. This plan, a so-called "clean" increase in the debt limit, recently failed a House vote of 318-97. Every Republican and 82 Democrats voted against.
There is a bipartisan consensus that increasing the debt limit requires major spending cuts and budget reforms. Every day, solving our debt problem becomes more challenging—and the range of options to deal with it becomes more limited and less appealing. The problem is a cancer and it's growing.
Throughout American history, Congress has never once failed to increase the debt limit. This makes having a debt limit functionally useless.
Moments that require Congress to act are rare, and this spending crisis—caused by irresponsible presidents and Congresses—is a crisis we can't let go to waste.
This opportunity to act boldly, given the fragility of our current economic recovery, deep concerns about job creation, persistently high unemployment, and public dissatisfaction with massive government spending, can be a game-changer for America's future.
Many conservatives have expressed their opinions about what kind of debt-limit deal would earn their support. Our organizations—Let Freedom Ring, the Club for Growth, and Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment—have joined with other conservative organizations and the Republican Study Committee to demand a pledge from every current member of Congress and candidate for federal office.
The plan is simple: cut, cap, balance.
First, we must demand that spending is cut. We should make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year. Last year's deficit was $1.6 trillion, the largest in history. We must cut our deficits now, not over 10 years.
Images.com/Corbis
Second, we must demand enforceable statutory caps to return federal spending to 18% of gross domestic product, where it has been for most of the past 60 years. Federal spending is now nearly 25% of GDP, which is unsustainable. If the spending cap is breached, it must trigger automatic spending reductions. Republicans in the Bush years and Democrats in the Obama years have proven that we cannot trust them when it comes to spending.
Third, we must insist on passage of a balanced budget amendment before that debt-limit vote occurs. The amendment drafted by Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) is a good example to follow. It requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to increase taxes and a three-fifths vote in both houses to raise the debt limit, and it requires the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress each fiscal year.
An amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both houses, plus the ratification of three-fourths of the states. Ratification will take time, but Congress must act first, and it can do so before the latest debt-ceiling "deadline" of Aug. 2. The states have annual or biennial balanced budget requirements and the federal government must too.
The cut provision makes an immediate impact in next year's deficit. The cap provision sets a new spending limit that Congress cannot violate without triggering automatic cuts. The balance provision will set us on a course to balance our budget every year in the future once it is ratified.
Individually, any of these three steps would be a major stride toward saving America from fiscal ruin. Taken together, they prevent irresponsible presidents and legislators from finding new ways to spend money that we don't have for things we don't need.
The current Congress has a chance to do right by the next generation. Now more than ever, we need politicians who will risk their political careers with courage, to do what must be done.
Many candidates ran last year on a promise to care more about the next generation than the next election. Now they have a chance to prove it.
Mr. Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring USA. Mr. Chocola, a former congressman from Indiana, is president of the Club for Growth. Mr. Blackwell, a former secretary of state of Ohio, is president of Pass the BBA.

Michele Bachmann, great liberal hope



The Tea Party favorite goes after President Obama from the left on healthcare and race 

relations



Michele Bachmann, who was glitter-bombed by a gay-rights activist on Saturday but did not seem to notice, continued her "she's surprisingly formidable" tour this weekend with a speech at the RightOnline Conference, an Americans for Prosperity-sponsored conservative response to NetrootsNation, the annual conference for liberal activists.
The reviews of Bachmann's speech are in!
Bachmann's speech was the usual stuff about how Obama made the recession and debt and a bit about how much gold is worth now because Obama is intentionally devaluing our currency (illustrated by making people fold dollars into segments). But there was some odd new material. Like most shameless Republicans, her Medicare talking points come from what is usually referred to as "the left," because she accused the president of wanting to take away senior citizens' free government healthcare. Weigel:
But then came the Medicare argument. Bachmann's case, as it was in New Orleans, is that seniors deserve to keep what is effectively a single-payer system. If the ACA is not repealed, "they'll be rolled into Obamacare. That's the future for senior citizens in this country. And nobody is telling this story." She warned them of the rationing that would come, augered by the rising costs of plans. "This is your intro to ObamaCare. You're not getting more care. This is the future for you."
Yes, why is no one telling the story of how the Democrats' healthcare reform bill apparently privatizes Medicare? A lot of people would be interested in that story! Like, does Paul Ryan know he's wasting his time? He already won!
Obviously old people are an essential part of the Republican coalition, and so defending socialism-for-them is to be expected. What would be weird is if Michele Bachmann started attacking Obama from the left on, like, black issues. Which, according to CNN, she proceeded to do:
"The president promised the African-American community, he promised the Hispanic community, that he would make their lives better. And that is what we want for every American," Bachmann said.
"This president isn't working. He's failing the Hispanic community. He is failing the African-American community. He's failing all of us," she continued.
What did the old, white audience think of this line of attack? Do they evenwant the Hispanic community working?
Here's the question: Is Bachmann delusional enough to believe that she can make a serious play for the disaffected liberal vote? (And how can Bachmann appeal to black voters when she knows that every time a black person votes it's actually ACORN-sponsored voter fraud?)
Even if it was just trolling, Michele Bachmann is now the only 2012 candidate to have brought up the black unemployment rate. Let's see if anyone else takes her bait! Maybe we'll get a jobs program after all, as part of some absurd effort to embarrass Obama.
(Also: Roll Call reports today on a 2009 anti-healthcare reform rally Bachmann held at the Capitol that was paid for with her taxpayer-funded office account, a rather direct violation of House rules in addition to an example of common hypocrisy. Everyone knew that she was doing thisback in 2009, but Roll Call does have a couple more examples of Bachmann engaging in her favorite activity: wasting taxpayer money.

Jobs: Moving Florida Forward

 

 

Mon 20 Jun 11 | 08:46 AM ET

The following transcript has not been checked for accuracy.
forward. chamber of commerce holding an event to talk job creation. joining us now, florida governor rick scott weighing in on the discussion paul ryan. reque good morning, governor. how what will you bring to the dialogue in terms of how to create jobs? as you know, florida is doing really well. we've had a drop in our unemployment every month sense i came in office. so i'm talking about the fact that we're probably the only start that has reduced taxes this year. i walked in with a $3.7 billion deficit and we now going forward have a $1.1 billion surplus. we're reducing regulations, getting our state back to work. what can the federal government or nartion as a whol? we can't get rid of our income tax. you can reduce spending. the federal government should reduce spending. they need to reduce taxes. as congressman ryan knows, they need to give the state block grants for medicaid. that would reduce federal government spending, help our states control our spending. but it's the basic things. reduce spending, reduce taxes, have a different attitude. reduce regulation. make this the country like what we're doing in florida, make this the country that people want to open their businesses rather than another country like panama or brazil, countries that we're competing with. but we're doing the right thing in florida and it's happening. right now i know i'm competing with governor perry in texas. i call him all the time telling him he's been the number one job creator. we're heading down the path of beating him this year hopefully. you're a private sector health care health ca health care experth. give us your sense on how you would come it if you're given this flexibility. and what's the best way to get at health inflation which is the biggest driver of our fiscal problem up here in washington. the only thing that works with health care is you get the individual to choose health care as engaged in the process as possible. so with medicaid, for example, they need to have choices on what type of health care plans they want and they need to have some sort of co-payment. very small, but they need to participate in the decision. so in our start, we can tig out how to spend the money better than all the strings attached from the federal government. but you take medicaid the same issue you have with private insurance. private companies have learned the more you have the individual involved in the health care decision and a little bit of the cost, they spend the money better. it's the only way you control health care and make sure people still have access to great quality health care. this is a difference in between where rick and i stand and where our prior speakers were. there's a belief in washington that you can kell gate todelega panel of 15 experts. no. rick, c you've shown how youn get at the root and make consumer powerful. but the consumer thinks when you hand it over to the private sector and there's a profit motive involved, that you'll spend more time trying to make sure you get your privates back and not give the coverage. what happens is if it's your money, you spend it better. you make sure that people don't waste your money. you'll buy the health care you need. you know what your needs are. 20 years ago i had kid any stones. can i tell you everything about kidney stones and thousahow to t them. you get the individual involved, they will eye say do i need the mri or can you use the x-ray. but is there a need for oversight over the private health care sector to make sure they're keeping -- there's logical oversight. but it's like what our states have done, we have all these mandates to make our health insurance cost too much. with regard to medicare, if the federal government would cut the strings, i could make sure that i take care of floridians because i know what we need in florida and if i didn't do the right thing, i wouldn't get reelected. governor,thing, i wouldn't get re-elected at the end of the day. governor, that's what i'm worried about. paul ryan is talking about not having to get re-elected is the only way to do the right thing. but your poll numbers down there, maybe you don't care at this point, but there's a journal piece or a new york times piece about how walker, you, some of the other ratings are so low, it's going to help in the national election. that governors that have made some of these hard decisions that it's going to hurt the entire party. i'm just wondering whether the republican party sort of put it all down on 2010 and now with these tough proposals, a lot of seniors are scared and they see scott walker with unions. if you lie to seniors, you can scare them. are you going to get re-elected, governor? here is the issue in our state. it's jobs. look at what is happening. i got re-elected. i ran on a platform of how to get our state back to work. seven steps, 700,000 jobs. people know we're heading in the right direction. as our jobs come back, which you can see they are, that's what's going to make our state happy. we're going to make our state the most likely to succeed. that will be important for people in 2014 when i run for re-election. but in 2012, the key will be who has the right blueprint for job creation? if the democrats do, they'll win. if the republicans do, they'll win. that's the key, it's job creation. do you want to have a final -- yeah, look, on health care, who do you want to be in charge, you or the government? individuals want to be in charge of their health care decisions. governor, thanks. we finally got you on. we appreciate it. hope to see you again. all right. thanks a lot. have a great day.

Greek Drama: Waiting Will Make it Worse?





Mon 20 Jun 11 | 08:08 AM ET

The following transcript has not been checked for accuracy.
i know michelle has been listening probably patiently. finance ministers are not ready to make a decision. if you had to be listening, i guess -- gr i'm in t you're the poster child for what we're talking about here. yep, seniors here are learning that they had 2200 euros a month and how they're getting 1700 euros and they're 80 years old. that's what happens when you kick the can to the very end. but let me give you the news first which is the rope you see the futures lower this morning is that the euro finance ministers did not come out and say, okay, we're going to give greece the 12 billion euro loan tranche that we already agreed to. they had with their verbiage last week suggested that maybe that was going to be the case, so the markets clearly disappointed that that uncertainty is not cleared up because they will delay the payment until they know the results of the referendum, the confidence vote on the prime minister. and also whether or not the parliament will actually pass the $28 billion austerity package and they won't vote on that until the 28th. so we have some time here. greece needs money because they have debt payments due in july and the country doesn't want to go bankrupt. in the meantime the greek people still extremely angry. we're at a very large protest last night, thousands of people. a lot of them were retirees, elderly, that have seen their pension cut in just the last few months. people who thought they were going to be able to retire earlier and haven't been able to and are worried. they said we're willing to work until we're 65, but can ompanie don't want to hire older people. so the turmoil here continues. the people here are very angry and they're starting to get very smart about the fact that the country's never in the end going to be able to pay back this debt. so why should they be suffering so much. i don't think they understand, joe, that they will suffer no matter what because the cuts have to happen regardless of what the out come is for the rest of europe. all right. this is our point. the whole point of this budget we put out will is let's preempt that. what happens with austerity is you cut current seniors. the people who get hurt the first and the worst are the people who need the government the most. poor and senior. we need to preempt and pre-seve that. you have to get us on a better trajectory, economic growth, job creation, reform these programs, get your spending under control. preempt a debt crisis and get this country agreeigrowing agai. we know what that road looks like. michelle is a good friend of my wife's and she's telling us what happens. this is precisely what we're trying to prevent here and unfortunately, the political paralysis is preventing us from doing that. so our hope is to get a down payment on this situation and then we have to make a decision what kind of country do we want to have. mohammed el-erian is the ceo of pimco. and he's been watching this situation. you're worried the europeans are throwing good money after bad. so what's the solution? i was in europe last week and there's nothing but bad choices. they're looking at a series of bad choices which makes it very difficult to take a decision. so as michelle said, they've decided not to decide when it comes to the creditors. meanwhile greece is seeing a tremendous amount of bickering and the issue is nothing so far has been done to solve the two problems greece has. one, compete excessive debt and inability to grow. it will weigh on our markets here and we'll see the same set of headlines over and over again and we cannot continue to keep the can down the road because we're coming to the end of the road this greece. we've all used kicked can down the road. people writing in saying please don't use that anymore but there's not a better way to describe what happens. what is the solution? how do you tackle these two massive problems? how do you a care of austerity without killing growth entirely? first you recognize it's a solvency issue, not a liquidity issue. second you recognize that waiting has contaminated it. so part of the problem now is that the ecb balance sheet has gotten contaminated. so you need to have an action plan for that. thirdly, you need to protect the economies that do not have the characteristics of greece, but could get contaminated. spain, italy. you need to move on plan b quickly, otherwise you're going to get stuck and everything's going to be more difficult. a year ago the ecb balance sheet was not contaminated so we could have solved it easier. today it is contaminated, so it gets more complicated. and six months time, gets even more complicated. so waiting around, not to kick the can down the road, but just waiting around makes the solution even more difficult. that sounds like an argument for outbreak where they come in and yacquadrant off the city an burn it. how do you take care of the burn without burning everybody there in. burning is not the right word. what we're looking at is better burden sharing. right now most of the burden sharing is being taken by the greek people. you heard michelle say they've said enough. in fact the driving seat is occupied by the greek people. forget about the parliament and eu, ecb. what has happened is the initiative now is in the street of greece. and that's not where you want it because it's very difficult to collectively organize the solution there. it sounds like your answers are mutually exclusive, though. since it's a solvency issue, you need the creditors to take haircuts, but that will no longer -- but you also say insulate spain and italy from the problems. that's the problem. if you make -- if you do give haircuts to the creditor, you finally take away some of the owe thus from the greek people and put it on the banks, then suddenly you have problems because everybody wants the same restructuring or more favorable tirms f terms for the debt. you're saying everything's hard choices. what do we need to do? i think you're back to 2001. people are saying argentina cannot depaul because it will contaminate brazil. argentina did default. contamination to brazil was technical in nature, not fundamental in nature. and brazil over came it. investors can differentiate between technical contagion which is a buying opportunity and fundamental contagion which is not a buying opportunity. that's the first issue. second, countries like brazil and italy and spain understood what they had to do. so the solution is there. it just takes political courage. so you're saying we need to not bail out the bond holders this greece. you say they could take a haircut. that's what merkel finally folded on with sarkozy. and the germans had it right in the sense of saying we cannot continue this process whereby the burden is carried by fewer people. thets let's have a broader burden sharing. there's been a year of inaction. how long will angela merkel be able to hang on? how long are the german people going to underwrite southern europeans? she's reversed her position on this. this. what do you see -- i know with the spreads on greek debt went up about 1700 basis points last week. is it diverging away from the other countries or is portugal and ireland heading the way of greece? italy and spain are are the ones that could tip this thing over. where do you see these countries going in relative i toward one another? we're seeing a lot of public bickering not only within germany, but what's most unsettling is between the german government and ecb that were once regarded to be on the same wave length. in terms of what's happening elsewhere, unfortunately, ireland and portugal have come under pressure. both of them have a growth problem. so it's understandable that they're coming under pressure. and the longer the situation fester this is greece, the more ireland and portugal will be treated the same by the markets. michelle told us earlier that the greek citizens recognize that this is not necessarily a bailout for greece, this is a bailout for the big banks. as this becomes more and more apparent, why wouldn't they force their politicians to say, okay, we'll pull out of the euro, we'll devalue it, which is how everybody else gets out of their currency issues. that's the way the situation is going about if no one gets into the driving seat and proactively decides where they want to go. everybody's stepping back now waiting for the other party to act. and that's what happened last night in europe. the creditors basically said let's wait to see what greece is going to do tomorrow. what you're seeing is very natural which is you start getting mistrust. you have what we call in economics an uncooperative cooperative game. so it needs to be cooperative. but it's becoming increasingly uncooperative. so what are the odds that they pull out of the euro eventually do you think? i think the longer the situation persists, the higher they get. i think that if all we get this time around is simply another attempt to throw money at a structural growth issue and all that happens is just throw money at it, in six months type the probability of a debt restructuring and probability of a devaluation will be much higher. okay. mohammed, thank you.

Welfare State Tipping Points





Mon 20 Jun 11 | 08:00 AM ET

The following transcript has not been checked for accuracy.
i'm joe kernen along with becky quick. carl is off this week. our guest host paul ryan. we have plenty to talk to him about, but first we want to check out the markets. futures are a little bit shaky. indicated down 60 points or so. hopefully not the -- he call it the ghost of futures past. i look at greece and i think there goes but the grace of god, 40% work for the government. hard to pay the salaries of the government workers. sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend. will is what we're worried about. we're worried about the welfare state tipping costs. if you look across the seas, you can see where we could head about we stay in the trajectory we're on. we're on this tipping point where more and more people are becoming more takers than makers. we're worried about getting close to that point. when you're 50% and people argue whether payroll tax is a tax, but where 49% doesn't pay, you get over 51%, i think you can learn a lot of elections. 51% can elect before befo-- you close up shop. it's having a limited government with economic 23r50e freechl. the premises is to fix our safety net so our welfare system is designed to get people back on their feet. that's where we're talking about job training and scholar ships to people who lose their jobs in toe industries, they go back to school and get back on their feet. the whole idea is to help people who are down on their luck in tough times, help people who truly can't help themselves. get back in a productive lives so we can have economic growth and entrepreneurialism. so we can have a prosperous country. now, my biggest fear is because of all this debt, because of all this spending, and because of this redistribution mentality we have per vading washington is that we're basically doubling down on that direction, and cradle to grave social welfare states simply don't work. not only is it morally wrong because it zaps people of their will to make the most of their lives, but they're xhieconomica bankrupt. this is where we've offered a different direction and this is why, yes, the debt limit hopefully we'll get a good down payment, but jared is a good which am peop example of mind set. the next two to four years, that's where we decide i think what is america going to be, what independent could hakind og to be. whether 2010 was like whether we move back the other way from that -- because you had a lot of know money item momentum in 2010 with what happened in the house, but a lot of seniors are saying they want to take away everything we have. but when they learn our proposal repeals the obama care rationing, it repeals the rate of medicare which obama care takes half a ril i don't know dollars from medicare to spend on other government programs, and we preserve the benefit. we make sure that people 55 and above don't see any change in their medicare benefit, but you got to reform for the next generation like we're talking about. it's a plan that -- sgh somebody wrote in and said my grandmother now gets a coupon book from the federal government and she clips coupons for the health services she needs. or does she get a voucher? i'll tell you my experience because i'm a federal employee. i get a book that says here are your insurance options. blue cross, aetna, humana, whichever. pick your plan and then my employer, the federal government, subsidize. that's what we're saying. guaranteed coverage options. every year you get additional amounts. they adjust upwards as you get sicker. more for the poor. an extra $7800 for low income people that's indexed for inflation. so we're saying you get guaranteed options just like medicare advantage works today, how you buy your supplemental or part d. and then medicare subsidizes it. and this is for the 54 and under crowd. 55 and above, no change at all. you keep the current medicare program. that's the whole point we're making which is every year you don't do something to fix this problem, you go trillions deeper in the hole. so our whole point is let's keep medicare promises. let's overt a debt crisis on we can do it now on you are on own terms because if you keep kicking the can down the road, we can't keep making those kind of promises. you can't shield current seniors. people who have already retired, the government made them a promise. let's keep that promise, finance it, which we do, get rid of the obama care damages it does to hair benefits, rationing board in charge of their program, raiding the program for pay for something else. get rid of that, guarantee their benefits. but you have to reform it for the next generation so we can do that.

Medicare, Healthcare & The Economy





Mon 20 Jun 11 | 07:40 AM ET

The following transcript has not been checked for accuracy.
more than enough to keep you going with know ham nmohammed e. that state you come from, that's a great state about. a day spent in wisconsin, that's a good kay. day. you have to go that far to find something you agree on about. yeah, that's 3r0eprobably wh the agreement will end. i was listening and i'm actually very happy to have an opportunity to talk to you because i think you're one of the most articulate purchaveyorf a set of ideas that is largely discredited. i'm going to be broad and then i'll get specific. because i know you deal in the weeds and that's another thing i like about you. what you described sounds like a whole lot about trickle down economics. didn't work in the '80s or the 2000s. the idea of slashing spending, hurting the most vulnerable people in the economy by cutting medicare, college tuition, food stamps. and at the same time, criticize class warfare, to me, this is robinhood in reverse. this is your own version of class warfare. and at the same time, you cut hundreds of billions of taxes for those at the high end. so it looks a lot like robinhood in reverse. let me give issue specifics. it's a very market oriented set of ideas as you very clearly articulated. i'm an economist, i very much believe that groowth is the way to go. but what we've seen in the past is when you go this route, what you end up is less income for middle class people, fewer jobs for middle class people, a deregulatory climate that hurts financial markets and leads people vulnerable a that front, as well. you give people an inadequate voucher for medicare so they're unable to achieve retirement security and you slash away at the programs that people depend on. so that's my overview what have i'm hearing. trickle down didn't work before, won't work again. and can i say one other thing? an unwillingnesses to negotiate with the democrats on the issue of revenues as becky was addressing with you and i think one place where i'd like to talk about is spending through the tax code. all right. gosh. do i get for respond to all of that? if we want to get into the discredited thing, you're the guy who put out the economic model and multiplier that said the stimulus spend would go prevent unemployment from ever getting to 8%. now it's 9.1s%. so where are all the jobs? you're ducking the criticism. hang on a second. i just fundamentally disagree with the premises from what you come. and we all know that. i just don't think you can sit in washington and micro manage the u.s. economy through the regulatory state and economic redistribution through the tax code. we what we want is a pro growth economy. we are no locker in the 20th century. so our tax rates matter. here is where we might agree. we believe just like the fiscal commission which i served organization i didn't vote for the final product, but we believe lowering the tax base. it means getting rid of what you call spending through the tax code. i have a different take on how you described that. more importantly, though, i don't think we should sit around in washington and pick winners and losers through tax expenditures. so in exchange, let's lower our tax rate but this is not trickle down where we think that some rich guy sitting on a yacht is going to just maybe spend money to help create jobs for people. what we want to do is remove barriers to growth. we believe in the characteristic of equal opportunity, upward mobility and economic prosperity based on an entrepreneurial free enterprise climate that helps businesses get created. that helps people get more prosperity. now, where are the facts? the facts are every time you keep raising tax rates, you slow down economic growth. you can give us some evidence say the clinton tax be ins and we had ploss pas prosperity aft time. we can't keep going down that path. we're taxing our businesses more than our foreign competitors. we have to be mower competere c. but let's not have a system where we sit around in washington and pile on more spending at the expense of the next generation, at the expense of the credit market which is are getting unstable. let's show the world that america can get its fiscal house in order. by the time my kids are my age, spending will be twice the level of shared gdp than it is today. the problem is spending, not taxes. let's get down into the weeds here. you talk about lowering the base -- broadening the base. broadenings base and lowering the rate. and i think we can agree. obama agrees that's a good idea, too. every dollar you take from that, you turn around and you give it to folks at the high end. and that's one way of going -- lowering rates for everybody. that's one wave going if you really believe in trickle down and if you weren't whacking the heck to the tune of $3 trillion taking that out of the low end. i would disagree. the fiscal commission said let's have a top tax rate of 26%. we're saying 25%. some democrats agree with us. and we're not talking about lower top rate, we're talking about lower rates across the board. there b they used a higher revenue line. and you talk about you don't want to pick winners. when you support repatriation, you're picking winners. you're picking multinationals as winners. the tax code picks winners all the time. you're just as guilty of that. i don't like it either and i don't think -- so we want to keep having losers where they keep their money overseas? i don't want to pick any winners. let's talk about this through the tax code. let's me use an example bob green stein likes to use. i want to hear what you have to say about this. so if i have a tax credit for a millionaire to get child care tax credit, that's something that we're going leave in the code because that's okay. that would be raising taxes. excellent point. but a child care sub city did i for low income people, that's spending and you want to cut that. to me they both look like spending. so let's deal with both of those. so excellent point. what we're saying is look at who uses tax shelters in america today. people in the top two tax brackets. we're saying for every dollar in that tax shelter that's taxed at zero, get rid of the shelter and lower the tax rates for everybody. whether it's 25% or whatever. so you're actually subjecting more of that higher income earner's income to taxation. so what we're saying, close those loopholes so you can lower the rates on everybody and have a better economy. look, where i come from, most jobs come from subchapter s corporations, partnerships. under the corporate law, top tax rate goes to 84%. in wisconsin, you throw your income tax on top of that, we're over 50%. how on earth can you have economic growth? i want to get to the voucher thing. you're saying we're giving a voucher to people for medicare. we're talking about premium support which used to be an idea that democrats championed. this is not a voucher approach where you get a check in the mail and then you buy something and you're on your own. this is a medicare exchange where medicare gives joe when you turn eligible a list of options like it works today. you pick your plan that you can't be denied that medicare pre-screens just like federal employees do. here's the point on the trickle down point. we're saying don't subsidize the welly person as much. tar get your spending, your taxpayer reallocated federal government intendspending to tho need it the most. less money for the wealthy. that is a far better way instead of spending more money on everybody in society. here's the problem with that. i don't think there's any -- premium support may be a fine idea about if it's actual premium support. what your voucher comes in at coop to the congressional budget office is $6,000 below what seniors would currently need to actually afford medicare. so what you're hoping to do is by giving less money to shop for insurance on their own that somehow you'll magically change the system. but insurance companies don't respond. worse your voucher loses value. so it's not cost saving. jared, what's your alternative plan? the alternative plan is the ipad. thank you. exactly. it's not cost shifting like tapping the cost burden and putting it on to individuals, retirees. good luck shopping for insurance. it's cost savings. and the only way you do that is exactly as mr. ryan said which is cost effectiveness through the independent payment advisory board which has to get under the hood, look at how we're wasting money, which we do. we can agree on that. there's a lot of waste. not worse than the private sector. it is. private sector health care costs grow more quickly than public. i think representative ryan would kroocorroborate that. the amount of fraud is much higher. that is a prejudice. can i send send you the numbers. 60 minutes did a huge report on the amount of fraud in medicare. about if i send you shall graphs, maybe you can put them up. do you a good job of representing your side's point of view. and here's what the ipad is. 15% the president appoints to be in charge of medicare financing, price controlling, designing new payment structures. the lesson i think from the ipad was the 1977 law didn't really work, so congress passed two trying to put the money back into the system. here's the lesson we learned. price controls don't work. what i think jared's side of view is that, no, price controls you have to get outside of the politicians. price controls don't work because politicians lose their will. so this ipad circumvents congress, puts the recommendations in place without congressional consent. and they have to replace the price controls somewhere else in an equal amount. what i'm saying is the difference here is we don't think medicare or any health care system should be organized by a handful of unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats imposing price controls. we believe in a consumer directed system. and we believe that this system should be one where we empower seniors to be good consumers with money, that means more for the poor and sick, less for the wealthy in, a system where the nucleus is the patient, not some distant unaccountable government. jared, it has to be fast. representative ryan loves to call those folks faceless government bureaucrats. and he does a good job of defending his side of the case. what he wants to do is turn this over to faceless insurance side bureaucrats who have consistently failed to control costs. cost shifting simply giving people an inadequate amount of hone to shop for this on their own has never worked. the only way we'll crack this nut is too g get under the hod.d if it doesn't work, representative, we will try something different. but please give it a chance. we're out of time. somebody wrote in that child tax credits are based on income and credit. and letting the wealthy keep their own money and calling that a reverse robinhood, does the vice president think you start at 1100% and whatever you -- when you take $3 trillion out of middle class and poor programs and you give another trillion to the high he said, the only group actually doing well, yeah, it's class warfare. reverse robinhood. thank you.