Mitchell Reports | January 08, 2013
>>> but now the looming debt ceiling and sequester. the u.s. -- joining us me now chris van holland, ranking member of the house budget committee . i hope it's a happy new year, but it looks like you're facing even more deadlines, and they are more perilous, even than the dead lien you all had on new year's eve when you were voting at 11:15 at night or something like that. let's talk about what lies ahead? i has also suggested that changing the way the cpi is computed for social security , the chain cpi and changing the age requirements for medicare should be one way to go on the upcoming budget negotiations. that's a nonstarter according to most democrats. where is the running room for any kind of room for negotiations?
>> well, andrea, first of all, i hope we can now at least ban the expression fiscal cliff from our vocabulary going forward.
>> let's hope.
>> you are right. we're right back into it, and we're back into it because republicans just judging helped in a bipartisan way, gotten over the fiscal cliff are now threatening that the united states will not pay its bills. that we'll actually default on the bills that we owe our creditors. as a result we're seeing a manufactured crisis, unnecessary uncertainty in the economy, the president has said that he is very willing to in this with respect to replacing the sequester, which will start march 1st , which are across the board cuts, but he is not going to be politically blackmailed over the debt ceiling. with respect to the sequester, replacing it, we need to continue to follow the same pattern that we did with respect to the fiscal cliff. in other words, and last year. last year we had 1.5 trillion dollars in cuts. we'll have to do additional cuts, but it will have to be combined with additional revenue from eliminating a lot of these tax breaks and loopholes that benefit high income individuals. the same kind of tax breaks and loopholes, by the way, that mitt romney and paul ryan talked about during the last campaign.
>> now, one of the changes that politico has been writing about today in a profile of congressman cotton, tom cotton , one of the freshmen, is that you've got congressman like tom kolton that is a harvard law graduate. when it comes to congress having been supported in the primary by the club for growth, cho gave $300,000 plus. so he has no loyalty to john boehner or to the party. he has loyalty to those who supported him. and those that want to take a posture on those cuts, and he won't be very open to negotiatin negotiating. le difference between a divide the government and a functional government is a willing tons compromise, and for a blueprint on compromise, have you to look at things like the bipart sfwlan simpson bowls commission framework. when i say framework, they said in order to reduce our long tv term deficits we need to do cuts and more cuts, but they also said we should generate revenue through tax reform . so going forward we're going to need to take that balanced approach. what we're seeing in the house is this group of really tea party republicans who think that compromise is a dirty word . just to give you an example, the most recent data point was the fiscal cliff agreement, which passed with overwhelming republican votes in the united states senate . in terms of house republicans voted against it. and so this is a real problem going forward because compromise is necessary. give and take it required if we're going to move the country forward. we've got at least one group dug in in the house republican caucus that has prevented speaker boehner from negotiating reasonable compromises.
>> chris van holland, thanks very much. i suspect we'll be talking about this for the next couple of weeks.
>> yes, we will.
>> next 40 years after roe