Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  February 10, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EST

5:00 pm
: mark warren, the former virginia governor, and they are working on some aspects of the bill. if they can get an agreement that could roll into a larger package. host: one last caller. caller: my comment is straightforward. i can't be more blunter. i noticed throughout the years, every time there is a republican in office, this country goes downhill and no jobs. and when democrats get in, there are plenty of jobs. and it seems to me people are forgetting who created this problem in people are forgetting who created this problem with the last eight years in the first place and they're trying to put the chain on all snack and it's not right. >> host: final thought on economic matters.
5:01 pm
>> guest: in terms of who's to blame, there is blaming its turnaround and obama hasn't forgotten because he mentions that quite a bit that you inherited every economy and its criticism from republicans who say he's been in office now for a year, it's about time that it took responsibility so both of the party is have their messages trying to get at on that and some of that message makes you think that -- there won't be able to get the bipartisan jobs bill despite the efforts. >> host: news editor for the hills, they do for your insight this morning. >> guest: thanks a lot.
5:02 pm
the administration requested a $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal year 2011.
5:03 pm
there we go. once again,, mr. orszag, welcome to the hearing. today we take up president obama's budget for fiscal year 2011 and i witness is the author peter orszag, welcome to this hearing. i can borrow a line from your budgets narrative in order to understand where we're headed it helps to remember where we started. our economy began backsliding in a recession in december 2007. one full year before president obama was sworn in. within weeks of taking office the administration and congress watch a supplemental to get this economy moving again. the recovery act added to the short-term deficits than estimated 1.3 to $1.2 trillion the deficit was already swollen by the recession and by the bush
5:04 pm
administration's on the budgets and bailouts. according to the cbo the recovery act has made a difference in their recommend recovery ashtray is to gdp by 1.3 to three-point represented points in the second half of 2009 and increased employment by as many as 1.6 million jobs. as recently as january a year ago, their economies was not growing, it was drinking and contracting by 4.54% alone. 741,000 workers lost their jobs in january of 2009. by contrast in the last quarter of 2009 economy grew by 5.7% job losses averaging 69,000. from the start of the obama administration has realized that under your garden's it would be impossible for brest the deficit down how by moving the economy up. and that's why the president bush -- president's budget for
5:05 pm
2011 has objective. of one eye on the economy and the other eye on the deficit. we brought back from the brink with too many americans still feeling the recession and author covered. and no one can be satisfied when unemployment averages 10% and in many places my district included it is far worse. the biggest initiative in this budget is for a jobs bill, at least making provision for it. the president's budget is focused on the bottom line. the deficit is cut by half and not from 1,566,000,000,000 in 2010 10.6% of gdp 727 billion 4.2% of gdp in 2013. and for years with its cut in half. the budget keeps would bring the deficit down his 2014 review 3.9% of gdp and $727 billion in
5:06 pm
the red one. having the deficit with four years is a worthy goal if we can achieve it. finding more plans to spur job creation the president's shift the emphasis of the budget from big business to small business. from wall street to main street in this budget which is not security spending overall when with priories like education increasing well above areas. in a three-year freeze on on security spending in a bipartisan commission with your proposed in the budget is not enough to finish the job and frankly i like to see a lot more deficit reduction but these are concrete commitments on the president's front to bringing the deficit down. when an unsustainable debt while avoiding the hard choices the harder they come. we proved in the 1997 law that is possible to reestablish responsibility but it can't happen without concerted effort. that's where the presidents of
5:07 pm
briscoe commission is a step in the right direction with this week the house takes a step in that direction wherry vote to reinstate statutory pay-as-you-go role which model of the rules and with record deficits in the 1990's. on both the budget and the economy there are hard choices ahead of us but the budget set up by the president today marks one more step toward moving the economy up were bringing the deficit down. we look for your testimony iwo and the return to a high-ranking member who mr. ryan, to make a statement. >> thank you chairman and welcome back when dr. orszag, good two have. throughout last year americans became increasingly focused on and troubled by the alarming growth of spending and debt to point out of washington and they had a right to be. no doubt the president inherited a difficult fiscal situation and was happening now is obviously our concern. by year's end the house passed
5:08 pm
legislation to boost spending by 3 trillion with the next decade, raise taxes by 13 trillion and increased deficit to 1.7 trillion. but last week in the city of the union address in the discussion which we're appreciative when the president was employing what i considered it from our open inclusive town. acknowledging the seriousness of our budget entitlement problems. and talk about the need for real the school discipline. i personally was heartened by his remarks. the president sounded as though he receives a message any senate ready to moderate his agenda. but yesterday we got the actual budget. which, however you cut it is remarkably similar to the plan we got just last year. more government spending, more taxes, more deficits, and more debt. here is how "the new york times" sunday that won't by president obama's own optimistic when over
5:09 pm
the next 10 years and practice 29 quinua years after mr. obama has left political scene even officers to terms the start rising sharply. his budget draws a picture of a nation that like many american homeowners simply can't get above water. let's look at a few key points. this year's deficit is 1.6 trillion a record and under this budget the deficit never falls below $700 billion and ends the decade at $1 trillion in income of 4.2% of gdp. taxes increased by $2 trillion hole, using the administration's own estimates. debt held by the public more than doubles over five years and exceed 60% of gdp this. consume 77.2% of our economy by the end of the budget window. why lawyers' -- supposedly aims at tempering the explosive growth will. so let's take a look at this
5:10 pm
spending spree is a bad applies only to non-defense not homeland on veteran international affairs and not tell grant non-emergency discretionary spending or another words 13% of total spending. the freeze would fall 84% increase in non-defense discretionary spending that the president has signed since taking office. it won't even start until next year. paygo one i will know that congress already has a bigger role in place right now. and since the democrats implemented it wanted in a majority in 2007 the deficit has soared from $161 billion to $1.6 trillion this year, tenfold increase. so i'm not sure how much will want to place in paygo we want to solve the spending problems. we really follow the rule, it's often waived and when we do is just used tissues higher spending with tax increases. finally i want to bring attention to this church and not been talked about the fiscal
5:11 pm
commission. you can see this chart very wow. when but on page 146 we've got the administration's actual clearly unsustainable budget numbers on the top and an advertisement for this commission at the bottom in the box, the box tells people basically don't worry we will when we put the problems of the commission will and fix the fiscal in the economic mess and the budget will make it worse. that's not what budgeting is and i don't think anyone can claim as a governing is either. and of those are tough words but we're in a very diverse fiscal situation. the president has contended had that many of our nation's problems was quote an otherwise lie in petty bickering and partisanship in washington and albio the first to agree we need to avoid the politics of personal destruction. we need to start talking about the substance of the budget won't have of us. dr. orszag you do that but we can get into a rigorous debate on policies we to believe are
5:12 pm
bad for our nation. i don't see anything in this year's budget that disappointed the exact same outcome of last year's budget and that's the hastening of her march down economic fiscal course and make it already is unsustainable budget outlook even worse. dr. orszag i appreciate your candor and i look for your testimony. >> first the housekeeping details, i ask unanimous consent that all members be allowed to submit opening statement for the record at this point. without objection so ordered a. dr. orszag, you been here before end of the rules of the road. if you make your statement part of the record a estimate and and you can summarize in any way you see fit. you can take all the time you need to explain the budget use in charge as you see fit. were glad to have you here and look forward to your testimony. >> thank you mr. chairman, members of the committee.
5:13 pm
the fiscal year 2011 budget from the administration focuses on spurring job creation, securing the middle class and putting the nation back on a path of fiscal sustainability. first let's examine whether over the past year, we have a bird in hand in second great depression. at the end of 2008 the economy was declining by more than 5% on an annualized basis. at the end of 2009 it was expanding by more than 5% on an annualized basis. it very substantial share of that shift has to do with the policy actions undertaken into a bird to a second great depression. and while the economy is expanding employment market remains unacceptably weak. the unemployment rate 10% there have been 7 million jobs lost since december 2007 and that is why the president is stepping forward with proposals like the new jobs and wages tax credits
5:14 pm
intended to help spur hiring today especially among our small businesses. there is also why we must while investing in education and income innovation and clean energy bring down our deficits over time because eventually those deficits will impede ongoing job creation. when what about the pre-existing condition with regard to our fiscal front? award the president went in visiting with our republican friends pointed out with that on january 7 2009 the cdl issue in economic and budget outlook that showed very clearly an increase in spending, from fiscal year 2008 at 20.9% of the economy to fiscal year 200924.9% of the economy, four percentage points of gdp increase before the obama administration even took office. what happened in reality?
5:15 pm
in reality spending in 2009 was actually slightly lower than cbo projected coming in at 24.7% of the economy. there's a different mandatory spending lower discretionary spending higher because of the recovery act but total spending was basically in line with what was initially projected in early 2009. what about our medium-term deficit? in early 2009 medium-term deficits over the next decade have a trillion dollars already appearing assuming a continuation of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and medicare prescription drug benefit neither of which were paid for in which had more than $5 trillion or a projected deficit and because of the economic downturn which produces revenue and increases spending on some programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps the combined action of the so-called automatic stabilizers adding more than $2 trillion to the projected deficit. one that's all when an
5:16 pm
explanation of the situation in which we found in find ourselves in but the key question as i think both mr. spratt and mr. ryan identified is what we do about it? and i think the first up is to embody or embrace the basic principle that we shouldn't make the situation worse. the administration is glad that the senate has joined with the house were and passing statutory pay as you go legislation which embodies the basic principle that you shouldn't pay for new proposals for new tax cut. if we have lived by this principle in the past our house your deficit would be roughly 2% of gdp and that has a share of the economy would be declining. we didn't live by bit then about we should now. economic recovery will help to reduce the deficit. and under our protection as we move from deficit of 10% of the economy this year to roughly 5% to economy by 2015 as the
5:17 pm
economy recovers. unfortunately that 5 percent of the economy is still higher than our fiscal targets which is roughly 3 percent of the economy and at that level jet -- the debt will stabilize. so how do we get from five to three? the first thing we do is we put four words with some proposals to reduce the tenure deficit by $1.2 trillion, let me repeat, the budget embodies even not counting unwed the winding down who of a worse in iraq and afghanistan, $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, more deficit reduction that embodied in the administration budget and over a decade. one how do we do that? a variety of steps. inouye financial-services fi raising $90 billion imposed on financial services firms with more than $50 billion in assets which will not only discourage leveraged but also meet the statutory requirements every
5:18 pm
pain taxpayers in foam for the cost of the term of legislation. second, we allow the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for those families with more than $22,000 in income, expire as scheduled in 2011. that reduces the deficit by almost $700 billion over the next decade. third, in order to help spur who clean energy when the economy of the future, a direction which we must move, we limited fossil fuel subsidies. reducing the deficit by $40 billion over the next decade. and finally we have a freeze on on security discretionary spending which reduces the deficit by $250 billion over the next decade. i know that freeze is not a cost of the board investing in education and rnd and clean energy while reducing spending in other areas in order to achieve when overall freeze. glenn also perhaps in the question and answer time like to
5:19 pm
address the claim about more than 80% increase before the freeze was imposed. thwart even with those steps of the house your deficits are higher than we would like which is why we are calling for a bipartisan fiscal commission and to give us the rest of the way. it's very clear that in order to address our medium-term deficits will lead to act together. and that is the purpose of the bipartisan fiscal commission to take additional steps necessary to reduce our medium-term deficits to a sustainable level and thereby allow ongoing economic activity and will it and avoid the harm associated with deficits that are too high. awhirl finally let me briefly point out that all of that has to do with our fiscal trajectory over the next decade. as you go out in decades beyond that the key driver of our long-term deficit is the rate at which health care costs grow and so i hope we can come together to pass legislation that will
5:20 pm
help to not only improve quality and expand coverage but reduce cost growth and reduce deficits over time in health care because unless we do that nothing else we do from it was perspective will ultimately matter. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> as i understand your presentation, the economy is assumed to grow at a rate of 4% on average for the first five years. some commentators have noted this and commented to him that is optimistic and blue sky. how you respond to that? had did you arrived at the four percentage point growth factor in developing this budget? >> the first thing for those interested in specific economic assumptions mayor contained in table as 13 of the budget. basically they were developed at the end of 2000 and nine under
5:21 pm
the leadership of the council of economic advisers at the time bully in line with the blue chips private-sector forecasters consensus on the path for the economy so there is a much more sophisticated process and all but one of the benchmarks we were using was making sure we were lining up with the blue chip consensus at the time and. >> would you describe it as a conservative or liberal? >> i think is straight down the middle of the plane. >> as you look at the projection of deficits for the next 10 years, the deficit is, indeed, cut in half from trillion 556 in 2011 to 727 in 2013 and 2014. after that time it hovers in the range of 720 to $780 billion till 2019 it when it is an uptick so rather than saying it
5:22 pm
continual foundered trajectory that are out years there's an uptick in the budget. what causes that it is that something you are satisfied with? >> first, one of the reasons we're calling for fiscal commission is we're not satisfied with the deficit numbers in 2018 or 2019 and there after an second underlying driver there is basically two things, one is ongoing increases with in medicare and medicaid and social security costs because of the aging population and rising health care costs and then also rising debt as a share of the economy imposing additional interest payments which feeds into the deficit and causes that slight uptick toward the end of the decade. the reason that we believe there is additional steps necessary and why is commission is imperative is that we need to get the deficit down before that stabilize debt as a share of the economy and avoid a that
5:23 pm
uptick toward the end of the decade and thereafter. >> para my good friend the ranking member has written something recently called a road map to our future. >> something like that. >> roadmap 2.0i believe. >> is contribution which i respect is a solid piece of work if you happen to agree with the premises. if not it's not exactly something i would endorse but nevertheless what is an earnest piece of work. >> i can put down as a co-sponsor and when. >> was one one i did see representing in "the wall street journal" if you have an opportunity to look at that and you regard this as a viable alternative to the situation we're in? >> i've had an opportunity to review and the cbo had an opportunity to review it, i think it's a serious proposal it does address the long-term fiscal problems. it does so in a way that i think many policy-makers might find objectionable. it does so by for example the
5:24 pm
key driver in particular to medicare and in terror who were those who are currently 55 or younger who will take the medicare program and instead of providing the existing benefits structure would instead provide a voucher which would ever its other effects will shift risk onto beneficiaries and the voucher increases at a much slower rate than health care cost which means you're also shifting expected cost on to beneficiaries. the net result of which is by the end of the cbo analysis medicare and medicaid have been reduced by more than 70 percent compared to their current trajectory. at acosta of a shifting a lot of risk and expected cost on to individuals and their families. >> there are other changes changes -- eliminates the tax benefit for employer sponsored insurance, introduces individual accounts into social security, has really significant changes to the tax code which will shift
5:25 pm
the tax burden down the income distribution and so on and so forth but since the author of the airplane is sitting next to perhaps i should defer to him to describe it. >> i yield to recognize mr. ryan. >> that is a lot. i'm answering the questions now instead of asking them. first of all i thought it was important that we get off of by pointing fingers at each other and start putting plans out there and talk about how to solve this problem. we pretty much all agree the problems here. i think we can even get agreement as to the size of the magnitude of the problem given that we use the cbo the gao and other nonpartisan fiscal authority. what we are proposing, what i'm proposing in some of my colleagues proposing is a look, let's tell currency nears we aren't point to mess with your benefits. you've already organized a last round of so that's why we're saying people 55 and above no changes, that's quite different than the bill the healthcare
5:26 pm
bill moving through congress now. mad takes roughly $400 billion out of today's medicare from today's seniors put in the creation of a new entitlement. we are saying let's not talk 86 percent of the pilaf manicured manage and we say let's tell those currency nears with your benefits are going to stay the same, but we know the future is totally unsustainable and the dr. orszag a a cancer -- a quick answer. he would agree that the spending medicare is on an unsustainable path, which you not? >> yes i agree. we have different solutions. >> absolutely, the point you're making is let's give younger people the chance to have the ability to plan for their future and let's use our values as we've had a consensus in society how we approach it.
5:27 pm
for social security the same thing, don't increase benefits as fast as you do for wealthier people who can afford on their own and give the younger people all the opportunity if they so choose to have it of having a system like that which we. congress have. the system looks a lot like the system we have on health care for our families and our own savings for retirement. on the tax exclusion i would simply say most economists and there's lots of talk about economic consensus, i would disagree with a consensus on stimulus but i think most people would agree that the tax exclusion is not very good policy. was written in world war ii at a time when people have the same job throughout all of their lives. it's not the way the world. day and people change jobs all the time, they get out of work and work for themselves so widely and the discrimination of tax policy against people who don't get health care from their jobs. let's give them the same benefit everybody else gets so delink
5:28 pm
the tax benefit from the job which is changing all the time and reattached to the person so that if they lose their jobs they keep their tax benefits and if they change jobs they keep it the world for themselves the keep their tax benefits and at the end of the day when we try to do it is attack the root cause of inflation bring it down, and really at the end of the day bellsouth atoll differences we have and will be evidence in the different approaches we take. we simply believe that nucleus of our economy and society of the individual, not the government and we believe we ought to have a safety net to help those who can help themselves to help people down on their lot but we don't want to turn that safety net into a hammock. that goals able-bodied americans into complacency and dependency on the government. we want to give people access to equal opportunity so they can make the most of their lives and reap the potential. add in a nutshell are thinking behind the plan i've been offering. with all of that and i
5:29 pm
appreciate the indulgence of the chairman, are you done with questioning time? [laughter] i will give you a couple of questions, i took a lot of time. you agree that medicare is growing too fast. groce at 5% annually which is 1.5 percent faster than the economy is projected to grow. that can't be sustained you agree with add? >> i agree. >> cdl as telling with this new health care moving through congress and i don't know of its plan to pass or what will happen with the most recent report from cbo says this new entitlement is at 8% growth with provisions used to pay for only at 5% in the medicare savings in the tax changes grow at 5% versus 8% so aren't we already walking in a new entitlement on top of the other and what liabilities we have that already is on a dangerous trajectory with respect to the resources being used to pay for it? >> i'm not sure what the analysis you are referring to, the one i've seen is the house
5:30 pm
legislation in the house and senate would not only reduce the deficit over the next decade but by simply reduce the deficit in the decades thereafter and that's because you have the deficit reducing parts going relative to the other components of legislation. ..
5:31 pm
as a gap in the second decade. and we had it clear that we want deficit reduction and the first decade and then improving thereafter. so that would violate that. >> i valletta want to send you about the parking allowance for health care reform. i wanted to know know with you now. last november, you stated in the medium term in 2015, 2016, 2017, we need to do something around 3% of the economy so that data set and no longer rising as the share of the economy. uni to see how the credibility of the budget was at stake. am i missing something? the president's budget doesn't meet the standard. why did the president submit a budget that does armada saturday laid out for a credible budget? benighted desi the standard including the recommendations of the fiscal mission. we get to 4% of them we said a bipartisan process was necessary. you put forth some ideas.
5:32 pm
i'm hopeful there'll be other ideas. >> somite mission doesn't meet the standards. >> correct. >> we will disagree on the level of discretionary spending. let's not begin to that. what about statutory caps? why not call for creating statutory discretionary caps to liken whatever it is you want to achieve? >> we believe the congressional projects are the 3:02 a.m. treo to be insufficient. but if you'd like to explore that the discussion were up to. i mention this to the president friday so i don't expect much. have you given any thought to the constitutional version of the veto given me the scalpel you need sort of like enhanced precision procedure? >> we are in favor of a constitutionally valid approach to eliminating unnecessary spending. >> so i'll take that as a gas. >> i'm going to repeat my answer. [laughter] >> thank you peter.
5:33 pm
>> mrs. schwartz. >> thank you. and thank you for your testimony and for the fact that the administration has taken it very seriously on what is actually a difficult eye with a balance that had to be struck to share in responding to and continuing to respond to the importance of economic growth and doing what we can to stimulate the are jobs and revitalize its economy. and of course respect dean what we inherited. the administration inherited a year ago 741,000 jobs lost last january in contrast to 64,000. although we're not out with that job loss it certainly is a much better trend. and i appreciate the fact that you'd really put forward the importance of making some investments for the future as we all, particularly small business
5:34 pm
job growth. we really appreciate some of the pros will spend the administration. i did want to follow up on some of the questions on health care. i want to see whether we can talk about this in a way that might be more comprehensible to everyone listening, if anyone is because i think we can and we should get into some of the budget terminology. the fact is that there is a very significant contrast between what has been proposed by the administration, by the democratic congress in tackling health care costs into the future and the republican alternative. now i realize that all the republicans may not be on the same page, but mr. ryan, in his presentation here really gives us an opportunity here to really talk about the contrast that were seen in terms of the health care reform legislation that we've been working on for a number of months and continue to work on. be an important only to improving access to health coverage for all americans in containing costs for businesses, helping them to be able to be
5:35 pm
more economically competitive and add new employees because their health costs will go down over time. but also making it moving us in the direction of deficit reduction for the federal budget. both of the proposals, the senate and house have both received scoring threat reduction in the deficit going forward over $100 billion. and potentially more as we look at the proposal for the budget. and deficit reduction commission, which we believe the president will do through executive order. but what mr. ryan is suggesting and has proposed and i assume many of his colleagues have endorsed is actually ending medicare as we know it. for future seniors. >> while the gentlelady killed wacs >> no. i think you given a good speech and i only have two more minutes. it really is offering a voucher to the seniors basically saying here is a voucher go and use
5:36 pm
clout with the insurance industry to be able to buy insurance for yourself, doesn't matter how sick you are doesn't matter. and it also does and employer-based cover terror, which many americans affect most americans get their health insurance to their employer. >> has just not right. would you yield? >> that there will be tax advantages for employers providing health insurance. >> that's not correct. >> it's the individuals and employers being able to do it. it moves all of this to individuals. now, i think that is a philosophical difference in ideological difference to believe that individuals who are seniors with serious medical condition or whether actually employed workers across this country. you're really putting a couple hundred million americans on their own to negotiate the best price and best coverage they possibly can. now, that is a very different
5:37 pm
philosophy. we have heard many of us in townhall meetings, that seniors want to keep the medicare and that those who employ to have coverage would like more consumer protections in the coverage. but in fact don't want to see the coverage go away. so could you elaborate a little bit more on how important it is for us to move ahead in a way that does really address the major issues facing both american businesses and american families and are seniors and our budget to move ahead on comprehensive health care reform that would in fact address the concerns and continue the rate of growth in costs for all of us. again, individuals, families businesses and the federal government. >> short and maybe i would just actually clarify things that i think mr. ryan would object if i read from the cbo letter about his plan because i think it just crystallizes the pros and cons
5:38 pm
when cbo wrote that both the level of expected federal spending on medicare and uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, but generally spending for health care in uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase. so what's involved hitting mr. ryan would agree that cost individuals and the results would be as cbo said. >> it would save the federal government money but wish it to the individual. thank you very much. >> just one thing. i think the cbo letter also says our health care reform gives more additional income to them than we usually do. it does not remove the tax deduction for employers to other health insurance to their emheoyees.xes provision of health insurance for their employees. it's the employee tax benefit that goes for my job to the employee pierce is a very confusing issue. i just want to make sure we debate this were using facts. thank you.
5:39 pm
>> thank you mr. chairman. welcome dr. orszag. this is not personal to you as i had a great amount of respect for your budget and your integrity. but this is a breathtaking document. its historic levels of debt, its historic levels of deficit. historical levels of taxation and is simply breathtaking. and i fear that the actions of this ministration undertaken by this congress will simply bankrupt this nation. i fear, i fear this budget document. now dr. orszag, i guess my second opportunity to speak to the president on friday. and if you would please relay to the president, i thought it spoke exceedingly well of him to his leadership and his character that he would come and speak to house republicans.
5:40 pm
in my exchange with the president, i laid out some facts i guess to put it politely. he pushed back on them. and i asked him a question that he declined to answer. for the record, i said the last republican budget did not grow government beyond 20% of gdp immediately frozen nondefense discretionary spending and spent $5 trillion less. for the record, the administration can go to the budget committee website pages 49 and 39 and verify that in your own table as one for your last budget to get the 5 trillion differential. i also asserted that what were once old annual deficits and the republicans have now become monthly deficits under democrats. can you pull up chart seven please? i do want to spend a lot of time looking backwards but i continue to hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle that republicans spent too much, republicans created these
5:41 pm
deficits. guess what? we share the guilt. yes, we ran up the deficits and i'm embarrassed about it. i regret it. it has an order of magnitude what you will see if you will go to chart eight that the average deficit when republicans controlled the purse strings was 104 billion. the average deficit when democrats have been controlled the purse strings 1.1 trillion. i would submit dr. orszag to the extent you inherited a bad budget deficit you inherited it from the democratic congress and i believe you are making it far far worse. [inaudible] >> okay. >> i don't think the clock went. [inaudible] [laughter] >> and i'm not sure there was a
5:42 pm
question, but i do delighted to answer it anyway. >> what do you want to do? [inaudible] >> would you like me to respond? the >> mr. chairman, is the clock now working? will work now? there we go. i'm okay with two and a half. >> would you like me to respond to that? >> okay, thank you mr. chairman. [inaudible] the >> i'm not sure there was a question. i would like to respond to it, though. i'm happy for you to put that in context. the question i asked the president was will that do budget like your old budget tripled the national debt and continuous down the path of increasing the government to almost 25% and the economy again table s1 of this budget you've
5:43 pm
not presented show that debts held by the public is set to rise from 5.8 trillion fy away to a .5 trillion fy 2020, which is three times larger. so perhaps the president misunderstood what i said. if not i believe he was mistaken self certainly provide you with the citations. but dr. orszag, since the president decided to push back on my assertion that some other assertions i would like to share with you that you can talk about. now this is from cnbc today quote, the deficit for this year would be 10.6% of the total economy, a figure unmatched since the country was emerging from world war ii. this is from "the new york times" yesterday. now the budget projects the deficit will begin nearly 1.6 trillion in the current fiscal year, a post-world war ii record. cnn, they're not calling a
5:44 pm
stimulus to, but the obama administration was to extend the bike of several recovery act provision by putting them in the federal budget. cnn yesterday even if all goes according to plan, the white house still forecast u.s. public debt rising above 71% of gdp by 2013 up from 53% in now nine, levels that could spook the investors. today's wall street journal quote, all of this spending must be financed and so deficits and taxes are both scheduled to rise to record levels. also in the journal outlays will reach a postwar world war ii record at 25.4% this year. this is a new modern spending landmark. so if the administration pushes back on my assertions, do you wish to push back on the assertion of "the new york times," cnbc wall street journal and reuters.
5:45 pm
>> i think it is the same thing -- can i put up your turn of the deficits again for the second because i think this is important. >> mr. chair, excuse me, out of personal privilege could i ask you prepared those charts because i can't read on the bottom and i always like to know what the numbers are coming from. minority staff said the republican documents, thank you. >> i'm going to use -- [inaudible] >> the charges using cbl actual numbers. the minority staff provided the chart. >> that increasing the deficit you see there is a result of the economic downturn and policies already in place while you were in control of the congress. and in particular, if you take the projected deficit of $8 trillion. again i'm going to repeat, they reflect not paying for the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation and not paying for the medicare
5:46 pm
prescription that benefit an economic downturn. saying this is the responsibility of the administration of the democratic congress is like a guy who ran the big credit card bill, left before the credit card bill arrived in the mailbox in the new homers there. >> i'm happy to hear your contacts to what i don't hear his pitch you deny the facts. >> it is directed deficit is now higher than in 2007, yes. >> i'm out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> is to chairman i'm going to give my first 15 seconds to yield to mr. doggett. >> mortgage rather chart appeared mr. hensarling that shows the democratic in control. yes, sir that one. i don't fault you for wanting to give us eight years of bush and you're claiming for years of clinton, but that's all that chart shows. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'm under the impression that it's congress that controls purse strings --
5:47 pm
>> i understand you want to burden us with eight years of bush which the congress and the worst policies imaginable. deal the balance budget which came under president clinton's policies. that chart says more about what we face in putting together a budget than it does anything about the democratic and republican control. >> reclaiming my time. thank you very much for clarifying that. dr. orszag q-quebec could you tell me, did president bush ever submit a balanced budget in his eight years in office? >> i don't believe so. but what i know for a fact she never promote a budget that permits a budget like this does. >> and oblique ever produced a bounce budget in two terms in office. do you have number country numbers available of the total accumulated debt at the end of his term?
5:48 pm
>> yes, if you look at the historical table. >> would you read that into the record please? >> it will take me a second. >> while you're looking a few of the war costs that he placed on the long-term debt i would appreciate that your >> and i can give you that. the total war costs are now in the range of $1 trillion again involve cost of roughly $160 billion a year at this point. to answer your question on debt held by the public at the end of fiscal year 2009, that was $6.8 trillion. >> $6.8 trillion. >> now there is a question -- let me give the end of fiscal year 2008 was $5.3 trillion. >> i know one thing intel people go back to work, nobody's budget is balanced including the family budget, the local school budget the mayor's budget, the city budget, the state budgets
5:49 pm
around this country. do let me ask you at the end of the bush presidency, comedy jobs were being lost per month? >> roughly 700,000 jobs a month. >> i come from one of those areas that was hit in the solar plexus. how many jobs are being lost today after only one year of the obama administration? >> will have new information on friday but well under 100,000 hopefully we're getting closer to zero. most private sector forecasters believe that by sometime this spring will be experiencing positive employment. >> yes, that's an enormous turning around. i can tell you in my district what's happened is that people are buying lottery tickets in ohio because the situation still remains bleak. but for two positions that were open in our corner of the state 4000 people applied. people want to work. the work ethic is still out
5:50 pm
there. and i have a hunch that this year is going to get better, but the public is still hurting a lot. let me ask you in terms of the job proposals you are proposing to us, which do you view as being the most effective in helping people move back to work, as we look at the range of jobs proposal. we never had any jobs or postals from the bush administration. they just move our jobs offshore, more people got thrown out of work. which proposals aren't you making that have the greatest hope for our people? >> well, money just identify a few that congressional budget office has identified as being the highest paying for the buck in terms of employment effects. they include extending unemployment insurance benefits, which the administration proposes. and they include names like tax
5:51 pm
roll in line with our new wages and jobs tax credit, which is intended to spur hiring amongst our businesses. >> and you have some infrastructure proposals i believe in your -- >> we do. >> and we know that those actually get the most bang for the buck in terms of what they return to the public. for those individuals working off the left to the taxpayer because those are long-term wealth creation jobs. and so i would just encourage you to do what you can matter so that we can move more people back into the workforce and get something of lasting value for the american people. and i thank you so much for clarifying those figures for the record here at >> mr. since then. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome orszag and if anyone wants to understand what the problem in washington d.c. is all they need to do is listen to the debate here in the first little while pointing fingers
5:52 pm
and seeing who has decided to blame for what appeared to just want the problem solved and i don't to does any good to point out bush or this administration and say this is that in whatever. and i'm glad for the health care debate. i wish he would've had this debate on the floor would've been a good debate. unfortunately we were denied any debate ornate alternatives. we need to get back to try and solve the problems in this country. and while i think this budget is a problem in terms of long-term fiscal responsibility in this country, what the american people are saying is what you need to do if there is quit spending money. it's really that simple. quit spending money. they're saying, returned the unspent funds from the stimulus package to the treasury and pay down the debt. they are saying quit taking the money that came back into work and using it to fund new programs do what it was originally intended to do and that is pay back the treasury for the money spent on terror.
5:53 pm
and it doesn't seem like the administration seems to have gotten these issues. i know that you're in a difficult position. this is a tough time for all of us. there are parts of this budget i agree with that, parts i disagree with obviously. we've heard a lot about statutory paygo. statutory paygo means immediate follow-up. after the great rhetoric that was put out after having statutory paygo and we haven't enacted statutory paygo. the first year we reenacted that you exempted $412 billion in spending from paygo rules. so if you put in statutory paygo you better be willing to live with it and put exempted and if it's going to edit the impact in the long run. and so far nobody's been willing to do that. all we do is say the rhetoric about statutory paygo. do you know in terms of questioning do you know how much money we're spending budget wide in addressing global
5:54 pm
warming and greenhouse gas emissions in those types of things? because one of my concerts have been in the ranking member and almost every agency in their house money for global warming. i know a lot of the other agencies have the same thing. how much are we spending and how coordinated is all of the spending? are not trying to beat global warming denier or anything like that. i just don't see the coordination within the administration. if we spend a lot of money will say were doing good. >> we can get you the exact figures but roughly speaking there's about $2.5 billion in the domestic agencies place is like doing quite a research and so forth it in about $1.5 billion in international affairs in the international affairs budget, too. that would be about $4 billion that will get you the exact figures. >> the national park service has $10 million is spent on global warming. the eta spend the time of banana global warming we need to look at across all the agencies what we're doing and what the
5:55 pm
coordination is within the agencies that were going to spend all this money on studying global warming. i compliment the administration frankly for the first time in administration has matched some of the rhetoric in support of nuclear power with the funds in their budget. they put together a pretty good budget in terms of nuclear energy in the research and nuclear energy. i do have some concerns with some of the policy obviously. they got them out decision that we are going to completely found that a mother we are going to withdraw our application for yucca mountain. what have we put in this budget to settle the lawsuits that are inevitably going to come and that we are going to lose when we withdraw her application to yucca mountain? how much money is there for that and how to become without and what we see in the final amount is going is going to be? >> them a first answer that as you know president appointed a
5:56 pm
blue-ribbon commission to study longer range waste management and other options as we expand this form of energy, what to do with the way spirit that is crucially important. i get back to you with the exact figures. as you know, there are a set of payments that are are ready involved in the local storage as you know the waste tends to be stored in secure facilities, but around the reactors themselves. and i get back to you with the details on payment involved in that. >> thank you. i appreciate that very much. mr. chairman. >> let's focus on problems and see what we can solve going forward. >> thank you mr. chairman. and dr. orszag is my earlier prominence indicated i understand you have been given an incredible economic mess and budgetary mess and that you cannot clean it all up overnight. i do however have some concerns about certain aspects of your
5:57 pm
budget and the approach that you take. i think that your proposed limitation on spending is important, but you apply too narrowly. revenue as a share of gross domestic product as you know is that the lowest level in this country in 60 years. it hasn't been this low since 1950. but the use of the tax code to give special treatment to certain types of income with preferences, excursions, exclusions and credits, tax expenditures of boss found. many of these tax expenditures, just like the direct expenditures survey found public-policy and deserve our support. but some of them represent as much a waste of any direct program. i'm not going to give you any tough questions. i does want to raise the same one that agrees with the last merge, when you quote agreed wholeheartedly with me about my concern that we needed a greater
5:58 pm
focus on the budget with tax expenditures. but as i look at the section of your budget this year unevaluated tax expenditures, it simply copies the same minibus language that bush administration budgets used without crossing a tea or dotting an eye. there's a recommendation for limitation of tax expenditures. how are we going to get a budget in balance if wasteful tax expenditures grow without restraint? >> mr. doggett as i said before and i'll say now all fully concur that tax expenditures are worthy of scrutiny and are an important part of the fiscal problem that we face. were i guess i part company with you is i'm just doing a quick calculation in my head. we've almost half a trillion dollars in reduced tax expenditures contained in this budget. limits are not in my statutes, elimination of fossil fuel subsidies delivered to the tax
5:59 pm
code, elimination of special tax preferences for corporations and wealthy international activities ku to almost half a trillion right there. and i think the list could continue. i look forward to working with you. >> thank you. i'm referring specifically to appendix a were you outline what the challenges, but you don't do anything to provide the kind of evaluation and substantive review of those tactics miniatures that we need. >> as far as which he proposed on tax subordinates as i read your proposals after the administration made a compelling case for action lasher after president obama even as recently as the state of the union and as the presidential radio address said he was in favor of closing tax loopholes that were worth cooperations from shelter their income are shipping jobs over sure. all this budget does is reduce the amount of revenue we expect
6:00 pm
to get from international tax avoidance proposals by 40% from what you had last year. a master once the budget was taken i didn't see any action by the administration to try to secure any of those proposals and turn them into law. let me ask specifically in the remaining minute about your job tax credit because of her going to borrow money to try to stimulate jobs i know we want to be sure that we actually stimulate jobs that wouldn't have been created anyway. i think this jobs tax credit talks a little better than the walks. you're well aware that congress reject it this proposal last or in the of the cbo has had some good things to say about it, and noted that the credit would not be very effective in industries regions that are hardest hit because it does not provide incentive to maintain employment firms other than contracting. you are aware that a wide range of tax experts say that this
6:01 pm
proposal only encourages firms to do what they would've done anyways. that's especially true in this one since you apply retroactively to the date of enactment. we question whether it doesn't have the effect of starting a marketing avoiding some. can we do better than this job tax proposal and afford to have one, the proposal that senator schumer has advanced a plus ossian a much better way to do it? >> well, senator we are open to other suggestions and senator schumer and others have put forth similar ideas. consistent with the cbo analysis. and i guess what i would say is it is targeted to small businesses because small businesses play a crucial role in economic activity. you are right in some of the assistance provided will go to small businesses that would've hired workers or increase wages
6:02 pm
anyway. but i'm not sure that is altogether necessarily a negative thing. even in those cases and again the purpose is to induce more hiring and reduce additional wage increase. the we've been if it doesn't do that is injecting additional cash into small businesses and that will help to alleviate the liquidity crunch that many small businesses face. >> but you say it is targeted, but if all businesses that get this. >> as you know there's a cap that will go disproportionately to small business. >> thank you. >> mr. mchenry. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you orszag for being here. is this budget sustainable? i would say the fiscal course -- consistent with the earlier thought, let's try to avoid pointing fingers. but though the fiscal course we were on and the fiscal course that we remain on over the
6:03 pm
long-term are not fully sustainable and that's one reason why frankly we need to work together, including to a fiscal commission to address the problem. make absolutely. so, if you're testifying in six years, much as they were having this hearing. >> hopefully not. >> well, let's just say all right. as i do want to be sitting here in the minority in six years looking at you as the budget director unfortunately. [laughter] may be secretary of the treasury. but anyway, if we're sitting here six years from now and we've acted according to this budget you've proposed, what would interest rates look like bikes would we be in a fiscally sound position or would we have just major tremors in the economy in terms of high interest rates and things of
6:04 pm
that toward? >> look, what i'd say now is the most immediate problem we face is that weak job market. as we go out over time. and by the way that's very weakness means the private borrowing has collapsed and is one reason why despite elevated deficit which even mr. ryan will admit traditional mainstream economists believe hopes to mitigate the economic downturn but despite that long-term interest rates are very low. the ten year bond is yielding less than 4% today precedes the guy that has collapsed and treasury securities are relatively traffic. as private borrowing picks up, that situation will gradually reserved to itself and we need to get out of that problem for which again is why we need additional deficit reduction to avoid the risk that interest rates spike sometime in the future. >> was just be honest. i'm in support of a commission that would actually look at entitlement reform in a real way. i've got a bill to that end.
6:05 pm
the only difference between my bill and what the administration is proposing is that they wish to take tax increases off the table and the taxation of the table and look at the spending side of this equation. are you willing to do that? >> well look, we've put forward what we think is the right approach. but the fact of the matter is we need to let the commission do its work and we think would be premature to start taking things off the table at this point. >> are you concerned that the bond vigilantes are going to take hold and realize that this administration is serious, that this commission is a very serious, but there's no binding nature to us having about on these reforms? >> canaille, done that, thank you. there is a difference and we would prefer a statutory commission. i think that difference has been exaggerated. you have to realize the structure above this commission involve a supermajority vote
6:06 pm
within the commission itself to report on a recommendation. that is the key challenge. if that actually were accomplished the difference between a statutory guarantee of a vote and senator reid and speaker pelosi make it a commitment that there will be a bill, which they have done seems to me much less important. the real question entered into the earlier comment about working together and find solutions is, would you succeed will you succeed in getting the commission on a bipartisan basis to actually report on a recommendation? and if you do, i think that means we have recognized the severity of the problem together and were then able to move forward in the strength of the voting guarantee is much less important as vital attention that it has received to date. >> but to address the real issue, do you have concerns about the high interest rates in out years under budget such as the one being proposed? >> one of the reasons we are calling for not only the 1.2 total dollars in deficit reductions would afford a bus going fiscal commission which
6:07 pm
will have to take difficult steps is precisely to avoid that risk. >> so the answer is yes. >> at the motivation to record for the problem arises. >> okay. i certainly appreciate -- you've always been great forthcoming with this committee vote and your service to the congress but not to your service to the president in our country. my concern to be very straightforward is, you know, cheap landing in high standing with the answer, then the last decade would equal unrivaled prosperity in the current decade. it didn't. we had a tech bubble with low interest rates led to the subprime bubble. we're now paying for the subprime bubble and as a result were actually going to create a new bubble with federal spending and this'll be the obama bubble that generations are going to have to pay for. so with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. mr. berry. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you dr. orszag.
6:08 pm
i knew you've got the easiest job in government. but we do appreciate you and appreciate the way you do it. >> thank you here's >> most disturbed i found myself a few minutes ago listening to my good friend and colleague from idaho and agreeing with him and i probably won't sleep good for weeks. last [laughter] i've got a friend in arkansas that likes to say he hadn't heard that much trash since he went to western auto about a 3-dollar radio. some of the comments around and we all agree we don't need to be pointing fingers at each other but then we go right back into it again. i just want to say this, if we don't come together and deal responsibly with these problems
6:09 pm
and to talk about trying to solve these problems and leaving taxes off the table talks about solving these problems and leaving reform of the health health care system off the table i don't think it's possible to do that. and everything has to be on the table if we're going to do it. and we're going to oil lease a majority of us are going to have to come together and put together the best ideas that are available and then do something about it. and i think that's what you all are trying to do. goodness knows we needed to do for a lifetime. we do know we can do it because we did in the clinton administration. and so, i haven't said that. i will yield to someone that's got something more intelligent and a lot more technical questions that shall enjoy answering a lot more. thank you. >> seemed pretty wise to me.
6:10 pm
>> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, dr. is orszag. it's not sustainable in your view correct? >> deficits above 3% of the debt continues to rise this year the economy which is why we need in addition to the steps would afford a fiscal commission the rest of the way forward here it is >> what is unsustainable mean? >> one way of interpreting it is debt is rising that the share of gdp. >> what are the consequences of that? what bad things happen? >> were still in a situation or treasury securities are the safest in the world and we have time to act only to get out of the problem and get out of the race. the risk is that ultimately when you are on the sustainable course, interest rates will spike and that will impede economic and dignity and harm the very job creation that were trying to spur. >> okay, that's what i thought. if you look at the budget as it
6:11 pm
goes out despite the fact that the deficits around 4% of gdp as they go out gdp growth is healthy. you projected it at 5% year to inflation though you have a 2%. and interest rates are to control you have a ten year treasury at 5.2% on average which means real interest rate of roughly 3%, tenure is just rates of roughly 3%. i mean, that's all really good economic metrics, generally. so if you're going to have this high deficit, should those adjusters be shown higher than those later years? >> again based on economic modeling, show an increase in interest rates that reflect not only in recovery of private borrowing but also some effect of higher debt as a share of gdp. i would note, cbo's projections are not altogether dissimilar in terms of economic activity, interest rates and what have you. the issue is not with the central projectionist because
6:12 pm
that is i think in line with what our projects and success. the issue is either after 2020 or even before then, is there some risk situation can deteriorate and do you want to get ahead of that? and the answer is yes. >> clearly the deficit would be worse than projected gdp was less than 5% are interest rates were higher -- >> and vice versa yes. >> okay, the question i have dr. becerra, is even with those i think fairly optimistic projections that this budget doesn't work. i mean, when he said some sustainable and matches you same not into your credit you then intellectually said that when you're cbo director of nursing at today. the current cbo director. brookings institute says that. heritage said that, kato said that everybody agrees, why would the president submit a budget that doesn't work? >> now i do have to go back to the context again for a second,
6:13 pm
which is this budget reduces the deficit by more than a trillion dollars. we have said that despite the significant deficit reduction we don't get to where we need to be, which is why we need a fiscal commission. the comments of that unsustainability is that the -- we're hoping it will. >> okay, got it. so if this doesn't work him and you're saying the fiscal commission will come up with something to get it to work. congressman brian, who is just one commerce when the minority who is not here right now has a proposal which you may disagree and many of you may disagree with the policies and i'm about which by your admission fixes this, works, is credible, and one guy one minority congressmen to die. if the president can make a similar proposal? i mean, clearly with different ideas, but he needs the commission to tell them what to do? the president can't come up with
6:14 pm
his own idea or make a suggestion on how to make a sustainable budget? he has to permit to a commission for a month ago congressman from wisconsin has one that everyone agrees actually does work even if you don't like the policies and it? >> book, the policies are dramatic shift. eliminating the medicare program would solve the long-term fiscal -- >> dr. orszag, i give you all that. you may hate his proposal. but they work. so propose some you don't hate that word. why doesn't the president do that instead of saying i don't know what to do here, will give it to the commission and they'll figure it out. >> a look, we put for 1.22 in deficit reduction to get the rest of the way there is going to require bipartisan support. i don't think mr. ryan's proposal would get anywhere near bipartisan support. i'm not even sure the majority of your is so supportive. i used to put ideas out of brookings. that's the easiest thing in the world. we need to move toward the
6:15 pm
situation in which together we actually come up with something that can be enacted. >> okay well you can't do something unless somebody gives it a place to start. congressman ryan has done and would be nice to the president did, too. >> thank you. i apologize, i have laryngitis so i will be brief here. i want to thank you here for being here dr. orszag and i don't admire your job of having to clean up the mess you inherited, but i think this budget reflects an important start in the right direction. let me ask you three questions. first of all the republicans have asserted that the freeze on non-security discretionary spending propose in your budget follows an 84% increase in spending of that category. you agree with that assessment? >> no. let me be very clear about this. in 2008, spending in this category the budget was $408 billion. an increase in fiscal year 2009 because of the recovery act. then in 2010, it was
6:16 pm
$447 billion. so that him up is gone and that is the level as you can see in our table. that is the level at which refreeze nonsecurity spending. in fact is slower than i did 2011. so to argue that refreezing off of this grossly inflated race is just factually inaccurate. smack thank you for clearing that up. >> my next question involves what we're spending. ms. kaptur ask you about the cost of the war and i want to go further that is the cost of the war and the impact on the deficit. the fact is that i want to give the administration credit for putting numbers in the budget that i think reflect the reality of what were spending is. i happen to disagree with the administration's policy on afghanistan and i disagree with the previous administration's policy on iraq. but does one indisputable fact whether you're pro or con these
6:17 pm
wars and that is they cost an awful lot of money. and they're not being paid for. and i'd be curious to character assessment of the impact on our deficit as well as whether or not the administration would consider a proposal to actually pay for these wars, which is something that has been suggested for quite some time. >> well again the spending on the war in iraq and afghanistan is contained within an overall budget that achieves this $1.2 trillion deficit reduction. so from that date -- >> we actually prepaid for them. that could shut down in a bipartisan way. but if there was such a revenue source it would include reduced -- >> it would reduce the deficit further if you have some additional revenue source good and i think fma authority mentioned earlier the administration's budget for fiscal year love and includes $160 billion to for so the
6:18 pm
national security needs the president has identified associated with the war in iraq and afghanistan. >> i appreciate appreciate it it's just we propose a dollar increase in education funding or 1 dollar increase in health care spending we have to offset it. and when it comes to the war it seems that we don't have to worry about what it costs. i think the world war ii we had a war tax. but anyway, i raised that because they do think in addition to costing us dearly in terms of the lives of our soldiers it is also costing a great deal for a treasure. one of the great wave to address the growing deficit is to address the workouts. i'm a go to another issue. and that is -- we talk a lot about members and people throw charts of the man while the statistics, but the reality is budget are about people. in the united states of america the richest company in the
6:19 pm
world, we have a hunger problem. we have tens of millions of our citizens who are hungry, many of them were children. the president, to his credit, set a goal to end childhood hunger by 2015 and i think that's a tough goal to be able to achieve and sad to say. but how does this budget seem to accomplish this goal and what is in the budget to improve access to nutritious foods for those struggling to put food on the table's? >> congressman, i couldn't agree with you more. look, the fact of the matter is almost 20% i think with the latest figure is 17% of our children are obese which is one dimension of our food and nutrition problem. on the other hand, a million families in the united states have children who were quote food insecure, which means full access to food were hungry. and the president is committed to reducing that number to zero by the middle of this decade
6:20 pm
here to what are we doing? we have $10 billion we authorization of child nutrition programs in school lunch and school breakfast and so on and so forth. roughly $8 billion in the women infant and children's program for example. and those are two mainstays of our battle to fight childhood hunger and childhood depression. i think you point out even today the first lady was doing an announcement or an event leading this effort to try to address this issue. as you know, she is very focused on this particular -- >> i appreciate that and i wish there was a better understanding and government that by not addressing the issue of food insecurity and hunger, especially amongst children, you end up paying for it in the long run. kids who go to school hungry, don't learn. kids who are obese or chronic care issues. i praise the president and the first lady for what they're doing. if i can just make one final suggestion and that everything would be a good idea to have a
6:21 pm
white house conference on food and nutrition to get everyone together and come up with one comprehensive plan to be what to do with us once and for all. >> mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for joining us today. i have a general question of a more specific and limited start with this. i'm convinced the american people get it. and at an office congressman ryan or who said earlier they don't really care who's to blame for the situation we're in. once i says as george bush and we inherited this. we say some of the charts that representative hensarling put up that the amount of spending the last three years and the last years been unbelievable. but the american people get it. they know instinctively that we can continue doing what we're doing. several news sources talk about this budget, increased taxes increase spending, increase borrowing. they understand you can't have deficits running at 10% of gdp
6:22 pm
deficits averaging close to a trillion dollars of the next nine years. they get that. so the general question is i think they want to know, what can you say to the american people when they see the broad picture. what's the administration saying to them that can reassure them that were not on this path as mr. campbell i think very purposely pointed out that unsustainable. >> was a start we are freezing on security spending, $250 billion over the next decade and that includes a lot of choices that are i know some people don't agree with. you know, they're additional investments in education but you can go down the tables in this budget. as a whole series of departments from the commerce department, interior department and so on and so forth that are declining even before you take into account inflation. so that is a start. now some people say that's not enough and we agree it's not enough. that's why we put forward more than that in deficit reduction.
6:23 pm
now some people say even that not enough and we agree. which is why to get the rest of the way there we think we need to work with you to come up with a bipartisan solution to that final piece to get us to where we need to be. >> okay, let me ask you more specific question. how much of the increase in spending received over the last year and a stimulus package and i guess to some degree even the bailout, the tire program, how much of that money is actually now built-in to -- i know some of that was one time how much is built into the baseline in the out years. >> that's another point i should've made. in addition to the argument about the 80% increase that be inaccurate it's also not accurate -- it's also a significant accomplishment because i think one of the fears when the recovery act was enacted that all the discretionary spending would be built into the base and perpetuated over time. >> a question of how much. >> the nonsecurity frees me that's not happening. by the end of the frees
6:24 pm
spending in nonsecurity agencies will be below the baseline from 2008 projected forward. so that's perhaps the cleanest comparison. forget about the recovery act forget about everything that happened in 2008. take spending and look at the baseline by the end of the frees were below that. >> let me just be clear. none of the $787 billion in the u.s. act passed last year is built into any baseline going for it. is that an accurate statement? >> let me be clear. i'm sorry to get technical, but there's no budget authority provided by the recovery act in 2010 in the discretionary budget. our frees is off to 2010 discretionary levels in terms of budget authority and therefore my statement holds. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mrs. saunders. >> thank you mr. chairman. in thank you dr. orszag. i think we agree president obama
6:25 pm
inherited a very challenging situation and doug elmendorf at the cbo last week testified without the extraordinary impact of the recovery package. and we could imply that a different place without the very bold effort to stop the draft law. but we also know that unemployment or employment is a lagging indicator and i happen to represent some communities that have been very, very hard hit. one community has 18% unemployment and another one hovers around 12% kind of goes up or down a little bit but basically remained unchanged. so i applaud the effort that the president has purposing side of union address and that we see in the budget here today. but i'm wondering do your benchmarks and plays quickly went to be able to assess whether or not these initiatives are working? i've had a proposal out there that we need to do some direct creation that the federal government needs to get engaged around direct job creation,
6:26 pm
particularly targeted to communities that have been particularly hard hit and we don't see a lot of that kind of discussion today so i'm wondering if i was ever on the table if there's ever a point at which you say these tax credits are not having the impact that we need especially in those parts of the countries that are just dealing with extraordinary circumstances. >> with a gentlelady yield? i wish to associate myself with the remarks 100%. >> while we were a value weighting different ways of trying to attack this problem of the weak labor market, we evaluated the whole series of proposals. and so i'm not going to go into coming up from a full internal deliberations, rest assured that there were a wide array of options that were scrutinized evaluated, before coming to the conclusion that we should focus where we did. and i would just come back again and say do not forget that the
6:27 pm
recovery at some of because of the recovery act their 1.5 million to 2 million people today who would other wise be unemployed web jobs. that's a huge accomplishment. there's more that needs to be done, the unemployment rate is too high. the job deficit between the job losses that have occurred since december 2007 is a hole that needs to be filled in, but it would be substantially worse about the recovery act. >> but with these taxpayers are you going to look at a specific number of jobs created on a month-to-month basis in order to say this is working pacific, we really need to be visited at coming up with something that is more targeted to communities that have been particularly hard hit. >> i think we would welcome the additional kind of transparency and evaluation that's been built into the recovery act into additional jobs efforts of the congress also agrees that would be worthwhile. >> because as i talked to my colleagues on the floor who come from similar kinds of districts
6:28 pm
where reduced his extraordinary effort and i applaud the administration for the recovery because a scene in my district job after job that has been saved as a result of money spinning out into the private sector primarily through the grant process to begin to jumpstart for example clean energy jobs. i think these tax credits for new hires are important. but they're still just this one element of our society that's been particularly hard hit and we may need to do something more direct than the government directly engaged. thank you. i yield back. >> shields back. mrs. lummis. tonight thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to cement an opening statement that has to do with the history of the federal mine lands program. i just want to open by saying that an agreement was reached in 2006 on that program and so if you're going to open that
6:29 pm
agreement again frees everybody, frees the united mine workers benefits, frees disease from getting their money frees the state that are not certified, frees everybody but don't punish one person because quite frankly senator obama did so for that agreement and now president obama wants to change the agreement. so i'll leave you with opening statements on that subject and then switch again to something that president obama said. and this was last friday. and this was in a conversation with republicans. and i'm quoting, the source here the "washington post" on my transcript. so this is verbatim. i think paul ryan has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. i've read it. i can tell you what's in it. and there are some ideas in there that i would agree with. and then he went on to say that there's also some ideas i don't agree with. he did say this quote the major driver of our long-term
6:30 pm
liability everybody here knows its medicare and medicaid and our health care spending. nothing comes close. medicare and medicaid, massive problems down the road. that's where it's going to be whether children have to worry about. ..
6:31 pm
a former member of congress who sat and thought up the things we knew we could solve the and we reduced because we were two dug-in being partisan, so i want to tell you i really do want to work with the administration or anybody who is willing to have a serious conversation about entitlements that is in the president's acknowledgement, the only way to really get a handle on our budget problems and get to budgets that are sustainable. and to do something responsible for our children and grandchildren. so with that caveat, i would say if there is anyone who has a proposal but that is an alternative to mr. ryan's proposal, that we could all sit down and work on while we are
6:32 pm
here can be as a congress, do you know of a proposal out there, mr. orszag? >> i'm not aware of a proposal that would involve a number to come back to the same point which is represented bryan's plan works because it shifts substantial cost and risk to individuals. i'm not aware of any other plan that achieve either of those. either the reduction in cost to the federal government with a substantial shifting everest to individuals and it would be a very dramatic shift from the system that we have today in which individuals would face much larger risk than they do in the current environment. >> and is it fair to say that mr. ryan's proposal shifts that riss going to people under 55 years of age so they would have a chance to prepare? >> yes but i don't think that's something you can actually will prepare for.
6:33 pm
>> does any democrat in the house have a counterproposal to mr. ryan? >> while the gentle lady yield? >> i will. >> on november 7th the house voted for a bill which all of you voted against that had appellee $480 billion in medicare and medicaid reductions that were done through eliminating things like medicare advantage toward phasing them out making changes to payments, to hospitals and other health care providers. you may quell how the money was spent and ask the gentle lady if that were a freestanding bill just those cuts, which two vote for them? >> mr. chairman, i can tell you honestly i don't know. and the reason is because they weren't free standing. we didn't get to discuss. >> but if they were. >> and mr. chairman that i would assert again i don't know.
6:34 pm
the problem that i saw with what you were proposing a bear on health care is that it would affect people who are currently retired and mr. ryan's bill doesn't affect anyone who is currently retired but -- >> will the gentle lady yield appear if the republicans did at the point voting on health care reform presented a proposal which was spending $60 billion in sharing very few americans and actually raising the number to about 52 million. i thank you did vote for that alternative so you did vote for an alternative to mr. ryan's proposal yourself. >> mr. chairman with the gentle lady -- you did have an alternative to the proposal that did increase costs for taxpayers the number of uninsured americans. >> the proposal before us is the president's budget. >> in the.
6:35 pm
>> bear in mind that the president's budget takes a deficit of a trillion 556 and reduces to $727 billion over four years in half. the biggest entitlement that we must contend with is not medicare not medicaid cut in interest on a national data centrally obligatory. it cannot be manipulated and has to be paid and by bringing the debt down by that much in that time we've contributed to a diminution of the debt burden that is going to burden our future for years to, so is that a complete proposal, now the proposal is that will go until we have also that recommendations from the bipartisan commission. so in the meantime we are doing what we can and given the recovery to reduce the deficit and to avoid in accumulating of
6:36 pm
debt. now we get to move on with our questions i believe who is next? >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here. just for the record that i was not here when congress took the first big road in the early '90s starting down the road to balancing the budget. i did vote in 97, my first year here to take the final step because it was a two state step as you said. there were a lot of members on our side that to develop i was one who did because i think it's important to move toward a balanced budget and get our house in order and that's what we're about today but let me ask you a question on something else were my friends from texas and i will defer on. credits for hiring. i was in manufacturing years ago and we used it in this seven days when it came out and i
6:37 pm
introduced a number of the weeks ago a share 4377, the hiring act of 2010, that really does a lot of what the president's talked about in his state of the union that is now before us. last month last quarter we saw economic growth of about 5.7 percent i think is pretty close to where the number was. it looks like the economy may be turning around, but for businesses and the economy in my state of north carolina, we just got members of 11.2 percent statewide unemployment numbers and counties in my congressional district 15% two roughly. they aren't recovering yet so my question to you as we look at these incentives were hiring that's in the budget roughly $33 billion job tax credits that are proposed to be created in that are designed to help
6:38 pm
job creation, how many jobs does the administration assumed that this will create. i recognize that in the bill i introduced it capped to 50,000 and osher with the proposal this by the white house but how many are looking at in the first window of opportunity? >> i think kristi answered yesterday we have not undertaken a formal analysis of the jobs associated with that proposal. as the jobs bill altogether all intakes better shape perhaps some estimates would be forthcoming and that would end notes that if you look at cbo analysis of the biggest bang for the block this type of approach seems to rank pretty well. >> well, i know in the budget we did it my bill does it in two stages so is more generous but i think they're looking at about 3 million the first. then to something that second. as an economist do you believe
6:39 pm
that this is an effective use of a way to put americans back to work? let me just add that together, how do we balance this kind of a thing with what we really are talking about? i think all of us want to get in the same purpose in the administration and both sides of the aisle to get toward getting our budget back in balance over the long haul. >> let me answer the first question first. economic activity has gone from a big negatives to more than 5 percent growth and so gdp growth has turned around. the issue now is what typically happens as gdp recovers first you have rapid productivity growth that is what we have seen over the past couple quarters, then a firm start relying more on temporary help and expanded hours among existing workers and then only finally do get to
6:40 pm
increased employment itself. we are summer into the second and hopefully quickly moving into the third stage of that process, but what we try to do is collapse them so we can have gdp growth and job growth of more closely linked and something like a jobs credit can help jump-start employment among firms that are seeing their prospects begin to turn around that might be a little reluctant to hire with jobs credits they go ahead and do it. >> thank-you. let me move to one other thing quickly. i will say one of education when the secretary comes but this one deals with all i represent ward private and have a lot of military men and service. how are we dealing with the out years of the costs for ba and others were a lot of these men and women coming back with a multitude of problems that's going to be long-term is that packard in in the budget we are dealing with? >> yes there are a variety of
6:41 pm
steps taken under the secretary's leadership and even before you ship over to the va undersecretary gates leadership, as you know, the va budget has now experience historic increase to 20 percent over the last few years and we succeeded in moving to advance the preparations which will help secure funding for the va. the secretary is absolutely focused on providing high quality care to our nation's veterans and the budget supports them in doing that. >> thank you mr. chairman and i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. director, thank you for being with us, this is a follow-up on my friend and colleague from north carolina talking about. i know some of my colleagues were talking about this but i represent the largest i think represent the largest and director district of ohio and seen a number out and i also represent the largest agricultural district. as you looked through the past year with a stimulus of
6:42 pm
787 billion and a question about the extra 75 billion avedon to that and we're telling the people back, they're only going to have an 8 percent unemployment rate, and of course, the latest numbers u.s. was at 10 percent in ohio is a 10.9%. i represent 16 counties, four of which are over 14% and one of 15%. so a lot of the folks out there and i met with my constituents yesterday in two different counties for over eight hours meeting with person every five to seven minutes for eight hours. they are looking at what we're doing in washington and don't see that blacks and out like to look at your testimony on page two. i want to make sure what we're talking about here. use a more than a million small businesses will receive tax cut for the latter proposal which will stand 5,000 tax credit to small business for every new job. again, i thank you have kind of
6:43 pm
pointed out, a lot of places have cut back but in our areas we've had massive unemployment cuts right now and employment cuts -- but we've also had the same situation and with a lot of plants with people working 32 hours. so i have talked to these people constantly across my district. the first thing they want to do is get their people back up from 32 hours to work full-time in and then the plants that are still holding on by their fingernails are saying what we're will do is hold the three are right now and see how long we can go with the same employees. what will this jobs -- $5,000 tax credit to those businesses? >> in particular business is not extending but will expand their hours or this, that's one of the key reasons why it's not just a jobs but jobs and wages tax credits. basically what will happen is as long as you expand your social
6:44 pm
security payroll which you would if you increase the number of hours for existing employees you'd also be eligible for tax credit so we can walk through with you the details but the logic is precisely to can add to the types of firms you are discussing and not only that but frankly even for firms for the workers are working 40 hours a week to induce an increase in wages paid in and provide some tax incentives were small businesses to do that too. >> as long as they have an increase in their social security for the employee. >> the aggregate social security payroll that would happen if workers at the same rate is worth more or at the same hours remark. >> let me ask this question. because of a the number of employees that have been added to the recent federal sites does this budget look at reducing the federal payroll at all because it again when we looked at across our districts
6:45 pm
we've had i'm sure everyone's had the employer say what has the federal government done to reduce and we've made massive cuts to try to save ourselves right now. >> there has been an increase in the federal workforce of the past several years. mostly in the department of defense, department of homeland security and veterans' affairs and so on and so forth. as you know also there's an historic low wage increase in federal workers built into this budget along with a freeze for the top-level presidential appointees and in terms of a the federal workforce there is a charge in the analytical perspective on page 99 and then the table and some are there a table on page 107 that this provides the total. you can see the total executives branch civilian employment actually does decline from 2010
6:46 pm
to 2011 under this budget. >> how much of an increase would we have seen for a total of federal employment going up in the last let's say last two years afforded it the last year you cited? >> there were significant increases between 2007 and 2008. i don't have them in front of me but i can get those. >> would appreciate that. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i believe everything should be on the table tax cuts, spending, what's gone to happen in the out years with entitlements because we really do need to get things under control. but i am alarmed when i hear the discussion and being that the tax cuts can be looked at, can't be reduced. what we need to address what happened with spending especially the spending in the recovery act. now, i don't think it was a bad idea when our school districts
6:47 pm
all across our state were cutting education dollars that the federal government stepped in and help to our most vulnerable children with title one. children who are eager to read the need the extra push and extra help because we really don't want to leave her children behind. i truly believe we don't want to do that or with ida special education, students who through no fault of their own a struggle to learn to become more self-sufficient and to be productive members of society as they grow up. and i don't think it's wasteful to help our cities at a time of financial crisis when states are cutting back to make sure that there's police on the streets and the first responders with fire trucks able to respond to fire calls. just last friday i was in my suburban district, i was in white bear lake and let me tell you folks the bear is looking skinning. i went to food and shelter for people used to volunteer are now recipients.
6:48 pm
i went to meals on wheels programs or receive more seniors now because of the doughnut hole that's still out there. we need to fix this which we're trying to in health care bill, they're still struggling between food and medicine. i heard from early preschool educators as well as other school officials that they are very concerned about the food and security that students face on the weekends and will face again this summer. and then and most importantly i met with j and i probably have permission to use his full name of ali going to use jay. a man who held in a 35 bridge after it collapsed, work day and night in bitter cold and hot summers, who has now been laid off. he has been looking for a job and without the extension in unemployment insurance without the help with cobra his children his two daughters would not have health insurance provided by their father. they would not have a roof over their head and right now he's
6:49 pm
fearful of unemployment extensions running out until it finds a job and possibly see his house go into foreclosure. a so to me this is not foolish spending this is not saying you're on your own society this is just coming together collectively to help another in a great time of need. now, i know that when we were facing this crisis and putting together responses that maybe we've learned we can do a better job in providing the responses that still need to be out there is of the economy recovers. i would like to ask you doctor, as the administration proposes to move for and with some of the provisions from the recovery act, what elements are you proposing to extend that, which was looking at refraining, why should we do this, and what is the cost and what is the cost to our society and economy if we don't reinvest dollars and recovery act? >> let me answer that in two
6:50 pm
ways -- one is we are proposing an embracing a jobs package as a supplement to the recovery act. the recovery act has succeeded in helping restore economic growth and as i mentioned earlier one-and-a-half to 2 million people would be unemployed today who aren't because of the recovery act but more needs to be done and that's why we're stepping forward with a jobs act. with regard to the recovery act itself there are a variety of cases in which each agency has identified specific -- and this is granular, but specific projects not working as well as behind schedule or should be funded and shifted to more promising alternatives and we can get a list of those projects but there's an ongoing effort to try to make sure i get the most from each dollar spent. >> mr. harper. >> thank you mr. chairman.
6:51 pm
dr. orszag, good to see you again. i think what we have noticed here since the very beginning is a there is no end to the spending that's going on. you look at this and you come in, looks like every agency, every committee even if the nra for members of congress go up. would seem to me if we were serious about getting a grip on the budget one of the first places we would do is on spending. we have state governments having to cut back and scaled-back businesses and households doing that. but to be quite honest we are doing that in washington d.c.. we continue to add a level of spending that we have had and at some point we have to begin to live within our means. but the little stuff does matter. while we can argue for or against the merits of the stimulus bill, it's hard to justify to taxpayers at home by the way we spent a couple
6:52 pm
million dollars on the field good highway signs to let you know your tax dollars was spent on this particular project. things that were absolutely not necessary and if you look our budget in congress over the last couple of decades i thank you have to go back to when jon casey from ohio was a budget committee chairman and you have the balanced budget act of 1997 and you saw were the numbers looked better. that we can do this if we choose to do that. one concern i have and if you could help make, how would you define the middle class? >> we have defined the middle class as incomes below $230,000 for married couples but if i could come back to the earlier comments were a second. if you look at and i won't comment on the congressional request because of that is a separation of powers stigma, i won't touch but if you look at
6:53 pm
executive branch agencies and this is contained in table s and 11 which you can see is what we're proposing is a reduction for the primitive agriculture reduction for the berman of commerce reduction for the brunt of health and human services come production for housing and urban development production for the berman of interior, reduction for the justice, reduction for labor a reduction for environmental protection agency, and so on and so forth and i'm hoping you will work with us. that's what's required in order to freeze non security spending. those kinds of steps. >> but for as many as use lifted -- listed we haven't made those cuts in u.s. and in the future budget. >> considering this year their preparations i told you will turn to that's what we're proposing. >> if we look at and honestly we are tired of hearing the mess that we have inherited or blaming it on former president
6:54 pm
bush which i can understand the first three or four months but now a year later we're still using maps, but if you look at the deficit spending of of the eight years under the bush administration if we look purely at the table as you have on the historical tables on page 22, if we are looking at those numbers coming into years of this and administration we're going to approach the deficit spending level of almost eight years prior. >> again, i used the analogy before it's like someone ran up huge credit-card bill, left town, credit card bills was up in the mailbox and a new guy in the house is planned for running up that bill. if you look at why we face projected deficits, it comes from two main sources. economic downturn which was apparent at the end of 2008 and frankly the steps we have taken have helped to mitigate its and that massive tax cuts and medicare prescription drug benefits which were deficit financed.
6:55 pm
those two factors alone add up to roughly $8 trillion in projected deficits over the next decade. >> back to the middle-class here to tell me how you define them. >> and gannett, for example when we talk about extending the middle-class tax cuts we are defining as being too and another $2,000 or below. >> the minimum amount would be what level? >> i don't know we have defined. >> middle-class anyone under 20,000 and the president said he would not raise taxes on anyone under to under 50,000, is that correct? >> that's, correct. >> but we are doing that, are we not? by allowing the bush tax cuts to expire are you not having increase of taxes on people under that amount? >> absolutely not the expiration applies only to those tax provisions affecting those with incomes above $250,000 clearly. >> that may ask a couple questions, the college education extends tax credit up to $4,000
6:56 pm
per family. >> american opportunity tax credit. >> will that go way? >> we will continue that. >> i believe my time is up mr. chairman. >> miss andrews. >> thank you dr. orszag, for being here. i want to honestly express my heartfelt appreciation for mr. ryan and i think mr loomis and others, they've spoken sincerely about trying to work together to solve these problems and i appreciate that and i do think there's a basis for us to work together to do that. there's a disagreement at first we need to emphasize. i do think the number one thing dr. orszag our constituents are talking about is jobs or the lack of them. in and the lack of job security. it's my understanding this budget proposal does include proposals that would cut taxes for middle-class families, cut tax for businesses particularly
6:57 pm
those to create new jobs, and would continue investment in building roads and bridges and clean water systems and things of that nature. is that right. >> along with investments in education and innovation. >> how much of the $3.4 trillion committed by a trillion dollar budget we're talking about how much is it? >> packin get an exact figure back to you but the bulk of that figure comes from medicare and medicaid social security and programs like that. >> okay. the other thing i think we are in sincerely here is people say why can't we spend less? to put aside the revenue stuff for a minute. why can't the government here operate on less money and i think that's a very legitimate question we have to try to answer and do something about. i do think is a born we understand exactly what that means. i looked at the 2010 budget projections for the year we're in right now and roughly
6:58 pm
speaking 20 percent of everything we spend a social security. now, there may be people who disagree with this but most people in the congress they don't touch that. another 20 percent is the defense budget. and i think although there are many who say that should be reduced i'm frankly not one of them and i think a majority of those would disagree with producing that so now we're taking $0.40 a way. $0.6 of the budget is interest, what we have to do. and by the way that's going to grow as interest rates rise which i think they inevitably will because of economic conditions that's going to grow and that's non-negotiable. that's the only true entitlement in the budget. you have to pay your creditors. now we take $0.46 a wide. another roughly $0.6 is pensions for people who have retired from the military or va pension or work for the federal government and retired and i don't think anyone would say you should take a pension away from someone who
6:59 pm
is receiving its. this is in future pension policies on our have taken $0.52 a way. a lot of $0.48 that are left, 70 percent of that is medicare or medicaid. so there's a little bit -- and there's $0.15 less and less talk about that, fbi agents, va hospitals, highway construction, cancer research, there are some waste in there. and look, i've for whenever effort we can to work together but you are deluding yourself if you think there's enough waste in that $0.15 to attack the kind of problem we have which brings us to medicare and medicaid. and i would ask you dr. orszag, just to talk about the medicare and medicaid savings the administration has already supported in the house and senate health care bills that have passed. tell us about how much that saves and where the savings come from. >> as you noted its sales
7:00 pm
roughly half trillion dollars over the next decade and i would no to it comes from the efficiencies gained by taking away excess payments to providers, much to approach the then -- >> for a simple every hospital has a really bad track record in readmitting people to the same hospital a few days after discharge a there's a disincentive to do that. >> there isn't currently under the proposal there would be. >> if there is a motorized water company that has a record of selling a lot of motor scooters to people that don't need them that is taken away. >> it is mitigated yes. >> the mccorvey did japan -- plan that pays under $14 for every $100 we pay for regular medicare that stays in various ways in the house and senate bill is that right? these are easy proposals into demagogue and frankly mr. ryan yours are easy to demagogue to and i don't think we should do that but i've heard an awful lot of demagoguery the last couple months about those proposals.
7:01 pm
.. >> i think we should go forward and try to talk seriously about what the administration has already tried to do.
7:02 pm
>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. now there are some things that we do agree on, i think. the fact that the debt is deficit is unsustainable. we have to address it. we keep hearing about hard choices. the president talks about hard choices. we've all talked about hard choices. you know, the american people, families small businesses, even large businesses having to make those hard choices every day. real hard choices. not theoretical hard choices. they are really making serious hard choices. they don't blame. they can't nor do they. they don't blame other for the tough decisions they are having to make. they don't pound their chest when they make the tough decisions. they make them. and they make those hard choices on a daily basis.
7:03 pm
they don't frankly make partial hard choices. some of the people in leadership whether it's the head of a family or small business or large business. they don't make partial hard choices and then they that don't solve the problem. and then but i'm going to wait for an independent commission to make the hard choice that will solve the problem for me. that's not what families and small businesses have to do. i'm not criticizing just this administration. i'm talking about congress and a i'm talking about what the american people don't do. the more than people don't do what congress does. they don't. they make the tough choices. they don't blame others. they don't make half -- i was going to say another word, they don't expect a commission to make the choices for them. so here's -- can we put up chart
7:04 pm
nine if that's possible? we hear a lot about the president himself talk about the hard choices that the budget makes on the three-ware -- three-year partial frees. here it is. those are the hard difficult choices that are being proposed in the budget. i happen a to agree. there are some hard choices that have to be made. that doesn't do it. dr. orszag, you are a straight shooter. we may disagree, but you are had a straight shooter. do you believe the three-year freeze, when you said that doesn't solve the problem. you'll going to create the commission that those with a straight face i can look at american people who are making real tough choices in their families with their businesses and say that we are doing the
7:05 pm
same thing? because we're doing it temporary freeze? and we're doing some other things. then we're going to have a commission to come back and tell us how to make the real choices to solve the problem. with a straight face? do you really think -- >> the american people are making -- we're making the same sacrifice in government that the american people are in their businesses and in their lives and in their families. are we making the same tough choices that they are? >> two comments. first, one of the reasons we are so focused on job creation is to help the struggling families. second, with regard to the deficits budget includes more than $1 trillion over the next dedication. more than any administration has put forward in more than a decade. and i would say if every family had to get it's proposals through the congress, the hard choices it would make would be much more difficult also. we're trying to get it done in a way that's feasible. the only way we're going to get
7:06 pm
to where we need to be is if we work together. that's exactly what we're trying to do through the commission. >> but dr. orszag you are said before that this budget will not get us to where we need to go and we need the commission. >> because you recognize that we need to work with you to get all the way there. we can't do this by ourself. even if we put forward a bunch of proposals that get down to 2% or 1% or zero. unless we have the congress of the united states working with us we are not going -- then it's a meaningless document. >> i understand that. you obviously have to get the congress through. with all do respect you've blamed the past and past administration as if that was a dictatorship. now you control the house the senate anded -- and the administration and now you are saying the president is saying he controls the white house and the same party controls it and he needs a commission. >> congressman -- >> hold on sir.
7:07 pm
the decision that every single american family makes every day. they make those hard choices. are you saying the president that controls house and senate is even unwilling or unable to get it done? i want to make sure i understand what you are saying. >> congressman, as you know one the things that's developed over the past period of time is in the united states senate at this point basically every single thing required 60 votes. as you know in a matter of weeks or days -- i don't have the exact update, democrats will not have 60 votes in the united states senate. so the comment that democrats control the senate is simply not accurate relative to the way voting actually works. >> but then that goes, you cannot then criticize the previous administration. it goes both ways, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, dr. orszag. just one comment and than i'll
7:08 pm
move to questions about jobs and infrastructure. i would just say that my colleagues have said that mr. ryans plan is constructive. i would concur. as i see it simply and quickly it partially privatizing social security it dismantles medicare increases taxes for the middle class. as far as i can tell, we've gone down that road before. it's been rejected by the public, i believe it will be rejected again. let me move to infrastructure. you know i'm particularly fond of dr. orszag. it would appear that the budget eliminates the idea of a national infrastructure bank as it proposed last year a the capitalization $5 billion over five years. unstead we have a national infrastructure and innovation fund within the department of transportation. i'm just going to read down several questions so that you can then at one time answer them. how much private capital do you
7:09 pm
anticipate the fund will leverage and how many jobs will be created with the fund? is the $4 billion request a one-time request or does the administration propose this is a ongoing funding level. if it's located in the department of transportation and other federal agency representatives reporting to the transportation secretary how do we expect or how can we expect it to be an objective independent, entity? further, questions with regard to the -- it looks as if we are just codifying the tiger grant teen. how was the fund not simply codifying the tiger grant team? and it also appears as if the budget continues the tiff ya assistance program for surface transportation. a question is why didn't the administration propose folding
7:10 pm
tifia program into the fund and does it make sense to have the federal programs, the fund and tifia that makes loans and provide other forms of credit? finally, it would appear that this new fund is similarly about a transportation. the bank as you know would have gone beyond transportation infrastructure to the environment and energy, telecommunications. is it the sense that we're going to start out expand it to other sectors? or do you believe we should just do a transportation infrastructure if you house it within d.o.t., it does become problematic if other sectors are to be added in the future. let me ask you all at once. i never get three questions. >> that's okay. i think there were more than three. that's fine. why don't i actually propose.
7:11 pm
i know this is an issue that we discuss that lungs in the past. it's something that you feel passionately about. the basis goal here is to get a concept operational building on the success that we have had on the tiger grant that has been successful, get the a concept operational and after proof of concept, it could be expanded into other areas and spun off if necessary. i think the most approach might be for me to get back to you in writing on all of them. >> why don't i lay those questions out for you? thank you i yield back. >> thank you, dr. orszag. i know it's been a long afternoon. i think we all agree that we are going through a weak job market. our focus here should be the economy in creating jobs.
7:12 pm
and i think the american people expect congress to be making some real policy changes here, to be moving forward with what -- with real policy reform. i think, you know, it's been talked about earlier and i think all of us when we go back to our districts. we face our constituents. there are americans out there the american people who are struggling right now. families are struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck. small businesses struggling to make it from payroll to payroll. you made a comment earlier it was in your previous job or previous career that you just put out ideas. now is the time that we have to be moving forward some real policy reforms. we've had this discussion. i want to go back to this. it seems the budget all of the real work again is being left to the fiscal commission. and the question is how much --
7:13 pm
you know, how much and you just recognized earlier that unless this congress in a bipartisan manner stands behind the commission how successful can this commission be with. you have an administration that proposing the fiscal commission. you recognize the fact that it's going to take congress to support the commission in order for the recommendation to be successful. and i guess in my opinion, you know, isn't it the job of the elected officials all of us here in the administration to make the policy decisions that need to be made? >> let me try to clarify also. because i think there have been various attributions. the hole that we face is so deep despite the deficit reduction, we are still in a position where with further steps are necessary. and we think the only plausible way to take those further steps is if we do it together. so yes we have a fiscal commission to get us there.
7:14 pm
it's simply inaccurate to say there aren't lots of hard choices p. you don't get $1.2 trillion deficit reduction that any administration has proposed without making lots of choices. is it enough? no we've admitted that. we need to work together. and i hope we can. i appreciate your response. i think there's been one proposal before the committee. congressman ryan has a proposal. i would have liked to seen the proposal. let me also talk about the debt. i have three teenage sons at home and i didn't come to congress to continue to run up for debt in the public. it more than doubles over the next fife -- five years it triples in the next 10 years.
7:15 pm
it would push the debt 63% of the gdp. i believe that's the largest in recent history maybe in history. that concerns me. when we're talking about the future down the road. at what point do we get control of the amount of debt which i believe is hurting our economy right now within the budget propro sal. >> right now we find ourself in a exceptional circumstances. private boring has collapsed. the interest rate on 10-year bonds remains below 4%, we have taken action to rescue the economy, and that was necessary. if we had not done that, as i've already said, $1.5 or $2 million people, the economy would not be growing at a 5.7% as it was in 2009, it is -- we sort of glide right past it.
7:16 pm
look at the prospects and discussion then about the possibility of another depression about the meltdown we face ourself. the many predictions suggest. let me just ask you in this bill how many new entitlement programs are created in this budget. what is the total amount of spending increase that's involved in the new entitlements. again, net deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion. discretionary savings. and yet you have precisely answered your question afterwards. >> we talk about the -- the president has talked about need for fiscal restraint. how is the administration going to enforce the spending freeze we talked about. how do you enforce that with this type of budget proposal? >> the way you could enforce is through the regular congressional process.
7:17 pm
but as mr. ryan and other already asked if you and your colleagues are interested in a statutory discretionary caps to better enforce that, that's a discussion we can have. >> dr. orszag thank you for yes, we'll be glad to -- >> two and a half hours. do you want to take a seventh-inning sketch. -- stretch? >> up to the committee. >> that's the first answer that blings into question your credibility. let me begin by eluding you and the administration for taking four major steps toward trying to get this car out of the
7:18 pm
ditch. it's for nondefense discretionary spending. that's significant. at this point colleagues said well that's really not significant. maybe those who think the reduction of $250 billion isn't significant. that might reflect how we got into this ditch in the first place. directly i commend the administration for supporting the pay-as-you-go statute. i think if we had that in place and republicans in this budget committee in that room it's not allowed that rule of the house to go out into the left field in 2001 or 2002, we wouldn't be in the ditch and facing the kind of economy and deficits that we are facing. number three i salute you for proposing the genuine effort by trying to reduce the deficit over $1.2 trillion. i would challenge anyone to suggest that is not a significant amount. fourth i commend the
7:19 pm
administration for supporting the bipartisan commission. and i know there's been some partisan criticism of that. yet, as i recall, i've set on this committee for a long time, as i recall, during the 12 years that republicans each and every year pass a partisan budget through this committee i don't remember any long-term entitlement spending reductions passed during those 12 years through the house. in fact, just the opposite occurred. on a partisan basis that passed the largest increase in medicare spending since medicare was created in 1965. i do want to go on record as saying i am one democrat who believes our short and medium term goals ought to be more aggressive than the administration is proposed and tend to speak out the on that. having said that, i almost also must say that it's disappointing that some of the captains of the
7:20 pm
economic titanic those that roll budgets that put us into the worse recession since the great depression and gave us the largest deficits in american history after they inherited the largest surpluses now do nothing but take pot shots at the proposals the administration has made. i welcome bipartisan support and dialogue. those who in charge when we went for the largest deficits in history if they are genuine about that be more open minded rather than immediately criticizing each of these four substantive proposals. i do want to commend mr. ryan. i think his proposal is substantive, it is dramatic, if not revolutionary, it is compared to programs as we know them in the federal government. i think this is an opportunity for the american people to see a dramatic difference in vision
7:21 pm
for the future of our country. one the administration is proposed again as we try to start reducing the deficits. the other one proposed by mr. ryan not just any back venture republican leading republican, well respected republican on the budget committee genuine about reducing the deficit the national debt, but one that nevertheless the proposal for medicare as we know it for people under 55 privatize security as we've seen the cost of that is up to $2 trillion in lost revenues. it also as we talk about new spending, i think republicans are right to ask about the level of new spending when we have the deficits we face. but i think it's also fair to look at the level of new tax cuts proposed by mr. ryan and the republican alternative vision for our country. let me just ask you this question do you have any find of cost on what it would add to the deficit some of the proposals in that ryan road map
7:22 pm
the republican road map cost to eliminating the state tax over 10 years reducing the highest tax rates from 25 to 30% eliminating capital gains interest income and dividend income and extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. do you have any ball mark numbers on how much those individual actions would increase the national debt over a 10-year period. >> we will get you exact figures, but we are talking about trillions of dollars shifted and offset through the other changes included to in particular medicare and medicaid. >> ryan? >> i can pleasantly interject the status quo is unsustainable. it will not exist in the future. it has a minimum of liability. we are all kidding ourself if we think medicare for under 55
7:23 pm
years old is going to look tomorrow exactly like it looks today. no matter is who is in charge, it's not going to look the same because it's totally unsustainable, peter orszag is the first guy that will tell you that. >> that's why they proposed a bipartisan commission to sit down together. >> sounds like -- you've never been able to get the vast majority of republicans in your own caucus to support your bold and honest proposals to reduce the deficit. >> that's what i'm doing. >> maybe we can try to do this on a bipartisan basis. for offering some tough choices and alternative provision. it's honest. and we ought to have a debate and debate that relative to the president's decision. thank you. >> mr. scott, >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, dr. orszag. could we have the first chart? dr. orszag, i appreciate the fact that you have indicated
7:24 pm
that tough choices have to be made. this chart focuses on the tough choice that is were made when the blue line was created in 1993 when we passed a budget making the tough choices that was severely criticized, in fact criticized so effectively that the democrats lost their majority in the next election. we in 1995, when the new majority took over, they pass the budgets that were viewed by the -- by president clinton irresponsible, and he vetoed all of them. in fact, the government was closed down because he refused to sign the republican budgets. if you want to know what would happen if he had signed them, we do know. because they passed them in 2001 where you begin the last red line and you could see exactly what happened. in 2001, at end of the clinton administration, we had a projected surplus of $5.5
7:25 pm
trillion that was converted to traditional debt of approximately $3.5 trillion or more. had we not messed up the budget in 2001 they would have paid off the national debt two years ago held by the public. now we find ourself in a huge deficit. one of our first priorities obviously is in creating jobs. now we're in the ditch with the deficit. my first question is if we cut spending effecting the deficit you can cut spending or increase taxes. if we cut spending, what effect would that have on jobs? >> right now? >> right now. >> right now either in 2010 when we face a big gap between how much the economy could produce and how much it is producing either raising taxes or reducing spending today would be harmful to jobs because the key impediment to job growth right now is boosting in for how much
7:26 pm
firms could reduce. that situation changes over time. for 2010, that's the answer. >> if we were to do anything credible about the deficit this year -- >> it would be counterproductive, yes. >> that's not to deny we need to get the deficit over time. >> in terms of dealing with jobs one the challenges that we have as we create jobs on the federal levels to laying people off. the recover act provided more than $140 billion for states, and yet they still cut their budgets than additional $300 billion for a total of almost $450 billion. that just went to offset what the states were. is it accurate that -- is that accurate that we've essentially offset when the damage of states are doing to the economy? >> we have through direct state
7:27 pm
fiscal relief and through federal actions offset -- i'll get the exact calculations. butbut offset the drag because they are doing counterproduct irecession. >> one the challenges we with have is just to keep up to zero to get up to the point where we are offsetting where the states are laying off. we lay off a job we haven't made any progress. >> without commenting on the exact figures. there's some ambiguity. one the reasons why state fiscal relief was provided through the recovery act was to offset the actions to lay off workers and nurses and teachers and cops which would exacerbate the downturn. >> could we get the next shot please? this is when we had good fiscal responsibility during the clinton administration, we created an average of $237,000
7:28 pm
jobs a month during the bush administration. although we're overspending the budget about $8 trillion over 10 years we did worse. in the long-term fiscal challenges that we can have been the next chart. this chart shows the change in percentage of gdp. net interest and all of the spending. and if you look closely the only thing that's really growing is medicare. so if you wanted to solve the problems seems like getting rid of medicare would be one way to do it. if that's -- >> it would do it. >> that's a tough choice to make. can you talk about the effect to cut medicare 75%. can you explain what impact that would have on a person who with is trying to get health care with a medicare voucher of 25% of the cost of health care. what it would do to employees if you eliminated the tax
7:29 pm
preference for health care. if you eliminateed that, rather than the market? what tough choices would amount to in health care choicing that the republican alternative would envision? >> and i think with regard to the 75% you are referring to the reduction that would occur in medicaid and medicare spending under mr. ryan's the republican alternative. look the fact of the matter, i'm going to give him credit for stepping forward with the proposal. there is a question about if it's feasible. you would be providing individual with a voucher to would not pay for the cost of health care, and they would thought have the type of benefit that would be provided through ert closed-captioned test,
7:30 pm
please stand by. 6' 8, 8 1/2, can do it all. i mean when i say do it all and do it gracefully. i mean with the greatest of ease. >> benji will, so his game and personality were -- wilson, his game and personality were electric, a future star in the nba until one morning when everything changed. get an inside glimpse at the man the nfl mayors have chosen to lead them in -- players have chosen to lead them in the fighnewtive rgaient. 'll uce emar ith.
7:31 pm
mmissioner roger goodell and nfl players association executive director demaris smith exchanging pleasantries through the media and have even been in front of congress as the two sides attempt a collective bargaining agreement and as they do so the atmosphere will get more tense. we know goodell he's within on the job three years now but who is this man that the players have chosen to be their voice in this turbulent time? here's comcast sportsnet's mid- atlantic's jill sorenson. >> for our last practice we could play head coach. >> yea! >> we do head coach. >> reporter: this is fun for
7:32 pm
demaris smith the executive director of the nfl players association by day and a coach for his 10-year-old son allen and his baseball team in silver vince, maryland, by night. >> tag -- in silver springs, maryland, by night. >> tag him! >> reporter: the intensity and passion you see here is smith's day job as union smith named the successor to the late and edge legendary gene upshaw in march, the man everyone calls dean has not slowed down. >> i've been on the job six months. i've probably been on the road three and a half, four months solid. >> reporter: he was seen as an outsider to get the job with former players as the front runners. his background as a trial lawyer was far from the experience of an nfl player. >> i definitely think that's a positive that he was an outsider, you know, guy coming in, he doesn't have all the connections or you know, any preconceived notions of what
7:33 pm
was happening before and, you know, can he come in and kind of look at things clearly. >> i'm very confident. i'm confident, that you know, he can get things done, whatever that may be. he's presented himself in such a way and i think he's broken it down to the players in such a way that we can understand it. >> reporter: as much as he's an outsider d. is a d.c. insider having grown up a stone's throw from fedex field. >> you come out of the room in d.c. and get smacked and then you're injected with burgundy and gold. >> reporter: on his resume counsel to then deputy attorney general eric holder and he also served on president obama's transition team. >> business worldwide in some way, shape or form always touches washington. it's one heck of a sports town. so yeah, those are things that are inextricably tied to who i am. does it affect what i do? probably. but hopefully affects it for the better. >> reporter: with the possible lockout on the horizon demorris smith has made it a priority to
7:34 pm
visit each team to help them understand the process. >> this was in one of the file drawers in our office and it slowly but surely i'm going through every drawer, every cabinet. >> reporter: why? >> a great deal of our history on what we have done internally to be a stronger union is there. the one thing i'm blessed about is gene was an incredible note taker. here on the back he'd clearly written out in longhand a speech that i don't know whether he gave or was going to give, but the most interesting part at the bottom is you see it in quotes, the nfl has always been willing to take a short loss for a long term gain. >> reporter: in the midst of negotiations or perhaps because of them d. and the union have made national headlines on a regular basis. >> as executive director, my no. 1 priority is to protect those who play and have played this game. to me it is probably a little bit of a combination of half
7:35 pm
negotiation, half trial lawyer. i mean both of those things are things that are in my dna for some way, shape or form. i think about my grandfather in the pulpit. there's probably a little bit of that, too. as a result, i'm really not afraid of my question. i want guys to be actively involved. truth be told, i probably lean on them in a very hard way, but this is their union. it's not my union. it's their union. >> reporter: always in the line of fire demorris smith is used to the heat. >> i thought that was a -- 17-year-old ben benji wilson was a rising star, a young basketball phenom with a definite nba future. in fact, in 1984 wilson was the no. 1 ranked high school basketball player in the nation. he'd been described as a magic johnson with a jump shot and kevin garnett with a better handle of the ball and a better
7:36 pm
perimeter game. luke stuckmeyer of comcast sportsnet chicago shows us wilson's wizardry on the court. >> reporter: chicago may be a football town and baseball crazy in summertime, but at its core in the city basketball is a way of life. we're not just talking about the m.j. glory days. we're talking about the kids who built their games here like isiah thomas on the west side and more recently dwayne wade and derrick rose on the south side, but 25 years ago somebody else owned these courts in chicago, a skinny silky kid with a smile named benji. >> and center for the wolverines a junior, 6' 7, no. 25 ben wilson. >> if you haven't seen him, you're in for a treat, 20 a game. >> i would go and i want to be successful and i do what it takes to be successful and that is when i go home i study and
7:37 pm
do my work and go to class. >> kind of corny stuff. >> well, it works. >> reporter: everything seemed to work for benjamin wilson, but especially basketball. >> wilson two. >> reporter: born and raised on the city's south side, he was the middle of five brothers and it wasn't long before that orange rock was the fiber of his life. >> looked like bruce lee with two basketballs. he approached the basketball hoops. just unbelievable what he could do with that ball three fingers pawning the ball like this. >> reporter: and with ben and his ball around the wilson's neighbors were always up early. >> the neighbors used to be furious about being woke up in the morning because he was always dribbling the basketball and one of the next-door neighbors mr. robertson said benji was the alarm clock to get him up and go to work in
7:38 pm
the morning. >> reporter: by 16 wilson could still play like a point guard but now he soared like an eagle with his new 7' 3 wingspan. >> bankston drops it down to wilson for a turnaround. >> we used to imitate ben when he shoots his jump shot. it was like he'll shoot it and then put his wrist back like this and run down the court but everybody used to emulate him in high school. that's how big he was in high school. >> reporter: and everybody wanted to be around him. benji's game and personality drew in friends and admirers from all over including the nba. >> ben wilson steps in, scores. >> 6' 8, 8 1/2, can do it all. i mean when i say do it all and do it gracefully. i mean with the greatest of ease. i mean and it looks so pretty when he was doing it.
7:39 pm
i mean it was smooth. it was silky. it was just you had to -- he had that camera that captured that moment. i mean he was that type of player. >> wilson slide down the lane. >> reporter: as a junior he was a starter on a lineup full of seniors. benji was third team all state and the wolverines went 30-1 for the 2a state title. that put simeon on the map. >> i think he helped push simeon into a more global nationwide type school, basketball power. i remember our senior year, you know, we thought we were world beaters, we could go anywhere and play anybody any time. >> reporter: after winning the state championship in the spring of 1984 ben kept improving stunning scouts at the nike all american camp.
7:40 pm
he left as the first kid from illinois to ever be ranked as a no. 1 player in the entire country. >> he was clearly, clearly benjamin wilson was the no. 1 player in the country. no one came close. >> reporter: ahead how benji wilson's life changed in less than a second. >> ben's thumb was rising and then at midday. >> reporter: a horrific crime on these streets in chicago is remembered 25 years later.
7:41 pm
benji wilson's future seemed secure. just a few years in college before fame and wealth would schuler follow in the nba -- would surely follow in the nba, but it wasn't meant to be. instead there was a tragic turn of events and now 25 years
7:42 pm
later benji wilson has never been forgotten. let's get back to his story. >> reporter: ben wilson had it all, sizzling basketball skills and an electric personality, but on november 20th, 1984, it was a gray cold fall day a on the like this one and on vinsenz avenue right in front of simeon high school the day was about to get even darker. >> the old guys, they've served their times and lived their lives, when the sun is eclipsed or the sun is rising it's so different. ben's sun was rising moving towards midday and then it became midnight at midday. >> reporter: at 12:37 on november 20th ben wilson was walking with his girl friend and mother of his 10-week-old son brandon. they were a block from the
7:43 pm
school. he liked to gather at a small store around lunchtime but benji bumped into two freshmen from calumet high school on the sidewalk. they pulled out a .22 caliber handgun and shot him twice, one bullet piercing his aorta and the other tearing a hole in his liver. >> to this day i still don't know the story. i've never tried to seek out the story because the only person that could tell is s away with a sibling connection that still haunts them. >> i was in library class and i heard somebody say i got shot. i got shot.
7:44 pm
i was in library class and i was like i'm going crazy, but then i thought about cain and abel when cain slew his brother and the most high said where's your brother? i heard his blood cry from the earth. right there something let me know that he got shot. >> and as a matter of fact, i had a dream two nights in a row before he died, somebody or something tried to tell me, had a dream that night benji was dead. next day i had a dream benji was dead. at that moment i heard my brother's voice say i got shoot just like i said to you there, came to me like. so this was something there and i was like what the hell's going on here? my mama always say you want the most high to talk to you, you got to be in a quiet place and i was in the library class at
7:45 pm
the time my brother was shot and i heard him. when i found out, i went be serk. >> reporter: he waited fo ery as a
7:46 pm
hey weren't supposed to. i don't like to talk about that but they had to see him. >> they was telling us that he's in stable condition and kenny allen pulled the sheet back and we saw him. we had to see him and we knew he was gone. >> reporter: early the next morning the day his senior season was supposed to start ben wilson was pronounced dead at the age of just 17. even president ronald reagan called the family to offer h
7:47 pm
down. >> it's not how long you live. but how well you live. >> then i seen my brother in that casket. oh, tried to wake him up like man, you ain't dead. get up, man. get up. get up. you ain't dead. get up. then seeing those two guys who did it. >> did you know ben wilson? did you know him? >> reporter: after the shooting cousins billy moore and omar dixon were taken into custody charged with murder and attempted robbery. moore was later sentenced to 40 years for pulling the trigger
7:48 pm
and dixon 30 years as his accomplice. on the day that benji died his simeon teammates decided to play their first game of the season without no. 25. earlier in the day students sobbed at simeon simply overwhelmed with grief, but benji's mother stood tall in the gymnasium. >> so today i speak in love of all of you who keep benji's memory and dignity and be strength v and strength and love alive -- strength and love alive. >> reporter: the wake was held on the gymnasium floor and 8,000 people came to see benji lying in his no. 25 jersey. the line stretched blocks
7:49 pm
outside of the school, mourners waited seven hours. >> i still have dreams about him like, you know, he came back and he was able to play again, but just dreams. >> sometimes i sit down and, you know, when i'm going through things, you know, i speak, you know, just like i would to my grandparents, you know. hey, benji, how you doing, that type of thing. i just can't forget about him.
7:50 pm
this is very emotional. >> reporter: still an emotional story 25 years later. there are some updates to this story. at the time of his murder benji wilson left behind a 10-week- old son named brandon. well, brandon would go on to become a talented high school prep basketball player himself. even played some college basketball at the university of maryland eastern shore but he would leave after his sophomore season according to a school official and as for the two young men convicted of this horrific crime, william moore is still in federal prison for wilson's murder and omar dixon would tack on additional charms when he was arrested for aggravate -- charges when he was arrested for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in a separate attempted murder case. let's move on. next summer south africa will play host to the 2010fifa world cup but it was back in 1995
7:51 pm
when they hosted another world cup that changed the country, a game of rugby that united 42 million south africans. now clint eastwood's new movie in vic us brings this amazing true -- invictus brings this amazing true story to life and sat down with matt damon ple that the movie invictus was born. obviously you're a big sports fan yourself. what did sports do you think has the ability to unite people like the way we saw in this movie? >> weah, spare iqued ted o ite and ela was
7:52 pm
actually quoted as saying that. i guess there's something about getting, you know, 60,000 people in a space together g fotly sa thou kople ss tcoun caion peooss the . s cawas thiste >> b me paect faces the daunting task of a vide h afogetin the wake of apartheid. what struck you about this story that made you so interested in wanting to do it? >> that it was true. i couldn't believe it when i read it and i called clint and i said i can't believe this stor ther
7:53 pm
out th of e taint rugby team. francois is a pretty big guy. how did you get ady ay >>gr world obly t th beey so >> sou i am
7:54 pm
am inspn anngthg near i because the country didn't fall into civil waby l e tionhould have and it's a decision that every single person in that country made. still to come he's a big and bad offensive lineman in the nfl but what are his keys to success off the field?
7:55 pm
7:56 pm
take a look at san francisco 49er eric heitmann and you'd never know that off the field he's a pianoman. here's comcast sportsnet's bay area's brody brazil to show us. >> reporter: this is the side of eric heitmann people know, an offensive lineman for the 49ers since 2002. and this is the side most would never expect, at 6' 3 315 pounds he's got the frame of a football behemoth with the hands of a beethoven. >> my mom made me take lessons about 10, 11 years growing up as a kid. right around when i started playing football, football became more of a focus for me
7:57 pm
and piano you put on the back burner a little bit. it was always secondary for me, always a hobby but something that i always kept up. >> reporter: inside his home today heitmann employs both a piano and keyboard setup inner it connected with the apple program garage band. it is here where the stanford graduate composes his best work in the form of cinematic sound scapes. >> my style is more of a movie classical theme sounding stuff i guess i would characterize it. >> so dramatic it plays well essentially. it's dynamic. >> yeah. i'd like to think that. you guys can be the judge. >> reporter: while football is the profession and composition is the passion, it's the music that gives eric an escape from life when he needs it. >> i'll be home sunday night or after a big game and maybe there's something you need to crank out on the piano to kind of relieve some emotions or something. i use it as an escape. it's a good way to kind of release frustration or whatever
7:58 pm
emotions you're feeling at the time. it's something i've done for so long, you know, i've played for so long i don't ever really want to let it go at this point. i enjoy playing and i'm going to keep doing it as long as i can. >> reporter: it's only natural to expect eric's musical endeavors will outlast his football career, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's planning for a future behind the keyboard. >> you never know. we'll see at some point maybe if there's something you can put out there. i'd love to get in a recording studio at some point, maybe not for profit, just something i could show my kids at some point. i'll continue to do this for as long as i can. >> reporter: brody brazil, comcast sportsnet. >> he's pretty good. his team's not doing bad either. that's going to do it for this edition of net impact. i'm your host and for all of us thanks for watching, see you again next month.
7:59 pm
! ! ut. i toit. i tothe efor outh. ale refot call yoa beng mx! heionsme! tahim,. d, ieir foulwhen boun


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on