Jansing and Co | December 05, 2012
>> republican in the house, congratulations, good morning.
>> thank you, good morning.
>> let me ask you about the possibility of some sort of two-step solution and do you think if you wait it would give republicans leverage?
>> i don't know if it's leverage. two-step solution is where we're headed. you can't do major tax reform and you don't want to do it behind closed doors . it will be a difficult issue, needs to be open door . the same with entitlement reform. this is a product of what our negotiations were last year from the debt ceiling. how did we get to the fiscal cliff, it's not only the tax increase from the affordable care act that started january 1st , it happened in the last lame duck punted into this one and the last summer budget negotiation punted into this one. we'll get real cuts equal to what we're doing in debt ceiling increase and if we want to resolve that the best time is right now because we have another debt ceiling increase coming.
>> you've told "the new york times" you think your party is boxed in. i want to read from " washington times " "republican leaders struggled tuesday to contain the backlash from conservatives of the gop's offer of $800 billion in tax increases to head off the fiscal cliff, a move that didn't impress the white house even as it spawned a rebellion on the right." so are republicans going to have to give on raising rates?
>> no. we're not, because where the president is focused in on is the affordable care act taxes they increase january the 1st on people making $200,000 or more. the president wants a rate increase coming in january on people making $200,000 or more and go into next year's negotiations on reforming the tax code and he's looking at a single year time period to have three tax increases on the same group of folks, we're saying that's dramatic on the economy, that will slow down development of our economy in a time we're looking to increase more jobs, why would we do this? how does this stimulate the economy and how does it solve the debt? the president's proposal is $160 billion of new taxes a year on a $1 trillion problem. we've got to get to the spending side.
>> let me play for you what the president said about this.
>> unfortunately, the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. he talks for example about $800 billion from revenues but says he's going to do that by lowering rates and when you look at the math it doesn't work.
>> he says, congressman, the math doesn't add up.
>> i'd like to see how he's doing his math on his spending cuts. so far take the spending cuts from last year and count them again this year, also going to end the war in 2014 so we'll have savings, won't wore row as much and take that as $2 trillion in savings. neither of those are real savings or cuts. the statement we won't borrow as much because we're ending the war and saying we never did a tax increase let's count it again is absurd.
>> the $800 billion proposal independent experts looked at this and say technically you have to get rid of hugely popular deductions for the rich, the mortgage or charitable deduction. if you get rid of the charitable deductions you put every hospital and university and not-for-profit on the verge of collapse. that something you're willing to do rather than raising rates?
>> no, what you're talking about is not the only alternative. there are economists that say that and there are economists that say a different direction. let's get the specifics on this because the public battle on this is not working and i wish the president would come to the table and say let's negotiate and get this thing done. we are very willing to sit down and say let's try to negotiate a final resolution at this point as earlier stated there's no resolution on this, we want to see this get resolved.
>> congressman james lankford thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> let's talk about negotiations, i