tv Inside Washington PBS April 10, 2011 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT
>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> liberals in the senate would rather play political games and force the government shutdown, and set of accepting a modest down payment on fiscal discipline and reform, i say shut it down. >> this week on "inside washington," the shutdown showdown is this any way to run a government? >> i'm not prepared to express wild optimism. >> the ryan lasted for the future.
>> it is to pay off our national debt. >> it is the same tired old playbook with seen before. >> we simply cannot allow the trial to be delayed any of lager for victims of the 9/11 attacks. -- any longer of the 9/11 attacks. >> the senate race in virginia becomes more interesting. >> i'm running because we face big challenges. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> full disclosure -- we are putting this together 10:20 a.m. friday, april 8. we don't know if and the government is going to shut down or not. is it a matter of a few billion dollars, or issues like
abortion, at npr, regulation of greenhouse gases? abc news correspondent jonathan karl talked to congressman david schweikert and senator joe manchin. first, schweikert. >> are you concerned that we could see a government shutdown when there are only a few billion dollars -- >> it is possible. >> worth shutting it down for those few billion? >> it is time for our side to stop giving and it. >> you understand how it back congress looks? >> -- how bad congress looks? >> i understand, i am one of them. >> we went through this in 1996 with bill clinton as president and newt gingrich as speaker of the house. how did we get to this point again, evan? >> we never learned. most of the country does not
want this to happen, but the voters and a district that elected the tea party people do want it to happen. that the book group of congressmen are under pressure from their voters to shut it down -- that little group of congressmen are under pressure from their borders to shut it down. >> colby? >> that is one-sided. the other side has pressure, the ideological side, the democrats who say we don't want riders in the bill. you have an ideological clash there along with the clash over spending. >> nina? >> it is insane to be having this fight over social policy riders instead of the budget. in the last analysis, that is what it comes down to. does anybody doubt that if you put this to a vote in both houses and there were no requirement from the leadership that they stay with the party
line that there could be a budget passed without the riders? absolutely, because there are enough but republicans who would vote for it and most democrats who would. but that is not the world we live in. >> charles, what will to do we live in? >> a world in which republicans offered a one-week extension so you don't have a shutdown. an extension that has only two riders that are completely insignificant. this is all about if the democrats think that by refusing at -- the president said he would veto it, the senate will not accept it -- if the democrats think they will gain by a shutdown, we will have a shutdown. we want to fake it on the air, but we cannot -- >> there is a broader issue here that we need to pay attention to. the world is watching the united
states, other countries who buy our debt are watching the united states. when you shut the government down, it does make other countries and other investors wonder what was going on there. is this a country that is capable of getting the jewel of its own finances? it is a really -- getting control of its own finances? is it really negative signal. down the road, people will say that we are not buying american any more and interest rates will shoot up and go back into recession -- >> i agree with evan on that except that it shot would not be our reaction to the shutdown. that would be a minor event. the shock would be if, for trouble, the president and the democrats persist with their budget for 12 years at ahead that does nothing about entitlements -- >> let me be clear, i agree with you that that is a threat, but that is one more thing --
>> the debt limit is rejected -- >> this is another chapter -- >> that is a bitter chapter. >> -- bigger chapter. >> they both have kamikazes in their camps and that makes it very difficult. at the moment, boehner has more. they have never seen a shutdown, they don't understand what the repercussions could be both for the economy and politically for their party or for the democratic party. they think this is going to be equal. i don't think it is going to be equal. >> i would add to trivialize it that way -- i would not trivialize it that way. they came to washington to do something and they are serious about the spending side. likewise, holding against riders that are going to have as serious and back -- serious
impact on a woman's right to choose is also important brought this is not a trivial exercise taking place here. >> therefore, when you look at the one-week extension, which allows more talk, with essentially no riders, it passed in the house, 15 democrats opposed it and a light 16 -- only 16 republicans opposed it there are extremists on either side, but here was a way to stopper shut out and did not happen -- stop the shutout and it did not happen. >> let's talk about paul ryan's plan. >> we owe it to ourselves, our children and grandchildren, our country, to get the debt under control. >> if you look at the republican
plans, it is recycled, rigid ideology that says we need to provide big tax breaks to the very wealthy and the very powerful at the expense of the rest of the country. >> that is congressman paul ryan, chairman of the budget committee, followed by congressman chris van hollen, maryland democrat. "the wall street journal" says that ryan's budget is the most serious attempt to in a generation. david brooks says that great journeys like paul ryan's begin with one greatly. on the opposite side, paul krugman says it is mean-spirited ness. >> we have to deal with entitlements. nobody else is saying it, he said, and he deserves credit for
it. on the other hand, it has problems. his goal is to a 18% of gdp revenue. that is not enough. we are going to have to face up to that, but he doesn't. >> it also it does absolutely nothing about the cost of health care. to pick up what evan just said, president reagan function with taxes at 22% rate of gdp, not 18%. we didn't have twice the number of baby boomers, which we do now, going into retirement, using medicare, medicaid, all those things. when you look at those as the numbers, you see is a much more daunting task. the ryan budget would have no money for bridges, no money for kids, no money for most things. >> who benefits most from the
ryan plan? >> america at. it prevents us from going off the cliff. it does tax reform. even obama supports it, but he will not propose a plan. it also recapitulates the 1996 a form of welfare, which clinton did, by applying the same new incentives to non- cash welfare. it attacks agricultural subsidies, it goes on everything. on the issue of revenues, yes, it does nothing on revenues, but at least opens a solution. all the country has to do is accept the spending side, which is all he approaches, and then to say let's have a grand bargain. you give us 2% extra in revenues and you know what you have? a completely balanced budget.
>> i agree with that -- >> i joined the chorus of people who said good things about the ryan budget in it that at least it addresses the two major problems -- three major problems confronting us now, the entitlement problems -- >> not social security. >> he punts on social security the semi obama did, but they do -- same way obama did, but they do step up to medicare and medicaid. democrats have been silent on this. take a look at the other aspect of this -- to reduce the spending back to the the level of 2008, you do that, you are going to have as serious consequences. this is not rhetoric, at this is not a doomsday thing. look at the people with head start now, the kids on headstart, the families
participating, and you will see dozens taken off. they will not go out on the streets and die, but people losing programs that really benefit them. you look at the question of what people are going to do on tax reform. he is silent on that. he does nothing about agricultural subsidies. he sees that in -- >> not true. >> extending tax cuts for the rich -- >> no, he lowers -- >> people who are doing well -- >> look, he lures the rates the same way they were though it in 1986 in -- he lowers the rates the same way they were the word in 1986. you lower the rates for everybody. it increases efficiency -- >[unintelligible] >> but then you go and take
something like medicare, which does need reform -- >> if you are under 55. >> medicaid, the program for the russia -- for low-income -- he turned it over to the states, and poor folks will have to count on the good graces of the states to defend them -- [unintelligible] then they back away -- >> he does something important on the medical stuff. the central problem with the government financing of your medical benefits is fee-for- service. when the doctor does the procedure, they get a fee. as long as that is the system, we will never get it and a control. > never get it under -- never get it under control. >> but what happens with those subsidies that are provided
under medicare? what happens if health care costs continue to rise under -- >> you have to break out from fee-for-service, what the government subsidizes the reservists -- subsidizes fee- for-service -- >> hello? >> rise above this premium subsidies -- what will the elderly do? >> let me give you one statistic that tells you the dilemma. 10% of the below account for 60% of the medical costs -- 10% of the people account for 60% of the medical costs. people with chronic diseases, old people. that means often in the last years of their lives. that means you have to have some sort of communal system, otherwise the system completely recount. -- completely break down. >> you ask who bears the cost
part expenses for the elderly? if you are more ill or less affluent, and you get a higher subsidy purchasing insurance, which is exactly how our country ought to do what. >> evan, you have been talking about fee-for-service for years. >> so long. here is a basic truth -- medical costs go up at about twice the rate of inflation. that is why not so long ago, 20% of gdp -- heading for 25. in our system, every time they dock it as a procedure,. they get paid for it. as long as that is the system, there is an incentive to do more procedures. as technology gets better, they have more machines and more procedures to run.
possible always exceed inflation if that is the system -- costs it will always exceed inflation if that is the system. >> if there is a law by the middle of your forehead, don't you want him to examine -- lump in the middle of your forehead, don't you want him to examine -- >> the obama health care plan he tries to break that a bit. the other nasty little secret is that no matter what system we have got, it is going to be rationing. if you have more money, you are going to get extra insurance policies and pay for more. there is not enough money in the world -- >> under the obama system, it is unfortunately going to be government technocrats who do it. here is the amount of money -- answer theto as leader's question -- if you have
a bump on your forehead, he will not have and an incentive to examine other bumps. >> serious concerns about -- >> if i go to a guy with a bump on my head and he wants to see my rear end, i'm leaving. >> premium subsidies -- >> vouchers. >> premium subsidies, vouchers -- >> they pull tested -- poll tested premium subsidies. >> ok. medicare recipients would have to pay more depending on what they get for the subsidies. the fact is, nobody knows the answer to this.
if premium subsidies like behind rising health-care costs, not withstanding the adjustments and they are trying to make for assistance, somebody is going to have to pay -- >> or, and i will concede this, you will ultimately have to get a system of rationing, what you have in canada and england. there is a rationing by queue. obama is trying to get rationing based on expert advice on what works. it is not to discredit ryan has done in least starting to restrain -- >> here is the thing, if you don't deal with this, you have two choices -- let it go -- let me finish -- raise taxes and we truly are paying a lot more taxes, or we will not have any more money for anything else,
defense or head start -- >> i think they ought to engage on this subject of medicare reform. and deal substantively with what ryan has put on the table, like medicaid. you just cannot sit back and denounce them -- >> and that is what they're doing, what the democrats are doing, undeniable. >> i agree, and it is irresponsible. >> where will 9/11 attackers be tried? not in civilian courts. >> khalid sheik mohammed, ramzi bin-alshid. >> that is attorney general eric holder.
there will be tried by military commissions and gitmo. sti -- holder said he still wants to try them in new york but congress forces and. > -- forced his hand. >> i always thought that with these guys, a military commission was at a reasonable thing to do. when you have to do is make sure that they are fair enough to pass constitutional muster. the last time the president tried to do it, he did it on his own without congress and they were to warfare and president bush -- >> the military knows how to do this. >> they do it and they should be able to do it. these people were involved in the biggest attack on the united states shores ever by a foreign power. i don't know why that isn't war and you shouldn't try
them in a military trial. >> what took them so long? >> they made a strategic error in deciding to close down guantanamo. >> he promised it in his campaign. >> but they should have known what they're talking about and had an idea of what can of pushback they would get. and after they got sworn in, they got their heads handed to them. that was a political judgment as they made and it was in error. >> i think the reason it took so long as a lot deeper. it is not a tactical error political error. war .aid it is it their idea is that it is not even war. it would be the glory of a market to show that they could be tried in -- glory of america
to show that they could be tried in court like it, criminal. it would be a mistake. it is an actor for anyone to try in a military commission -- it is an act of war and you want to try them in a military commission. that is what the administration got wrong. it will still not admit it's ever, but at least it had to bend. >> it looks like bush was out of control and out a gre -- abu ghraib and guantanamo -- >> john mccain had the same position. it sounds good until you confront the reality of how to do this -- >> just to hold people at nauseam without a real fault where you pick them up on the battlefield -- >> as we did in world war ii. >> at the question of trying people for whom you are believed
he of committed a horrific crime against the united steinitz -- the united states. it is reasonable to do the latter in a military commission. the former is different. >> one of the most important races in 2008 wa -- 2006 was in virginia, where jim webb decided to take on george allen and one. george allen wants his job back, and former gov. tim kaine has decided to fight him for it. >> the democrats are likely that kaine has come back into the arena. i am not sure how eager he was, but clearly he is the heavyweight here. he is the guy who could beat george allen. otherwise, it would end of runway, a short switch over to the republicans -- it would have been a runaway, a short-t --
a sure switch over to the reluctance. >> allen is ahead, double digits at the moment -- >> kaine is a popular governor and he has not started running at. >> he left his republican successor -- he kept cutting so that virginia was not in all the way most states or, and his republican successors were able to spend money. >> tim kaine will be succeeded by it debbie wasserman schultz. >> she was greeted by the traditional values coalition -- "way to go, dnc. you found a candidate best fits your profile for chairman, a junk yard dog who is mean, nasty, able to speak at a moment's notice, and able to
manipulate the facts and always uncompromising." >> strong press release to follow. >> was it not so long ago -- to be more strident of the big issue of the budget, and my fear is that that democrats will just demagogue and their way to the election. the democrats will not accuse republicans of -- will now accuse republicans -- old age in their playbook -- throwing granny in the snow. >> she is tough, but this is kind of -- is the kind of reaction -- >> will they throw granny in the snow. >> dnc is saying that the ryan plan will kill granny.
this will be one of the most demagogic campaigns we have ever seen it is irresponsible, but i think it will work. if you want to get reelected in 2012, as obama does, i predict he will sit back and ride that demagoguery into it election. >> demagogues have shown that they are capable and smart, and she will carry water for the democrats. >> last word. see you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log on to insidewashington.tv.