You have participated just the speech of the President on the reduction of the debt. Is this what you expected?
No, frankly, Charlie, it was quite the opposite of what I was expecting. I thought that with his invitation [to attend the speech]... He was extending an olive branch so that he could get back on the path to bipartisan solutions. And we have nothing else that. We have had dramatic distortions of our budget proposal. Earlier in the week when he sent his campaign manager mentioned that he was going to make this speech not his Budget Director or the Secretary of the Treasury, a small red flag went in my mind. But then when I got to the speech, and we heard it, it was extremely political, very partisan.
And it offers now - after the creation of a budgetary commission, he disavowed and did not in its proper budget - to create another commission to find ideas on how to correct the budget. It kicking in its budget. He said now we are going to have another commission, and oh, by the way, we will have this commission produce less deficit reduction, less savings than the prior commission produced. So I assume that we are going to do is to do without the President. We will have to talk to our colleagues here in the House and the Senate... because we have not any leadership of the President.
President Obama called your plan "a vision which says if crumbling roads and bridges to collapse, we can afford to fix their... but we can in a certain way more than $ 1 trillion in new tax breaks for the rich." How respond you?
I don't know even what to say on this subject. First of all, we don't talk even on the reduction of taxes. We are talking about keeping tax revenues where they [through permanent tax cuts Bush] and clean all the junk in the tax code for a flat, more equitable, more simple tax system. Therefore we are not talking about cutting taxes. We want to keep the tax revenues where they are and fix the tax code. All expenditure — you know, the partisan rhetoric of expenses - if you do set fees, Charlie, if you get spending under control, it will be money left for other things, roads, bridges, for education, of the environment. I am therefore surprised that he would use this kind of hyperbolic, rhetorical hyperventilation to describe our plan.
The Chairman said he may save money over the next 10 years by reducing the cost of health care, and which is more important than the creation of a program of good.
In fact, I think that he knows that this is not a good program. Its experts know that it is a premium support program. Good to give money to the person. They go on the market. This is not what it is. People get a choice. There is a difference of opinion here. And this is where he show us some recognition of the facts, the recognition was health care costs are growing too fast. President has said he wants this bureaucracy not elected without supervision or control of Congress to indiscriminately cut reimbursements Medicare, Medicaid, meaning the price of Government control. This does not occur.
You and President differ on the social pact between the country and its citizens?
I say Yes and I would like to explain why. We believe that we must repair our social safety net. Well, we believe that we need to have a. And that the social safety net must adapt to the 21st century. … We do not want to transform in a hammock that lulls people safety net in the life of complacency and dependency. We believe in social mobility, equal opportunities, not equality of results. There is thus a difference in philosophy here.
The Administration wants to treat as a single issue debt ceiling. Are you willing to do so?
Lol because it is the only game in town. It is a piece of must-pass legislation. We consider that the debt limit we want to attach the expenditure cuts and spending controls to it.
The President speaks much to win the future and suggests that because we can't that without investment in education and science.
I think that the investment is an another euphemism for expenses. Look, 42 cents on every dollar that the Government spends today is borrowed money. Half of which comes from other countries, no. 1, which is China. You cannot sustain a viable economy if rely you on others to your Government cash flow. We get spending under control.
没有评论:
发表评论