Paul Ryan Gives Chris Matthews a Plan to Almost Completely Reduce the Deficit - Matthews Ignores It

In this video, we get an embarrassing glimpse of Liberal, Chris Matthews, asking questions he doesn't understand the answers to, and isn't interested in. The goal: catch Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) in a "gotcha" moment. It didn't happen quite that way, and Matthews ended the segment frustrated and unable to accomplish his ambush.

See the transcript below the video  -  transcript courtesy of NewsBusters, along with reporter, Noel Sheppard's excellent commentary. Please visit NewsBusters  for additional commentary.

  Chris Matthews Schooled by Paul Ryan (video)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Congressman Ryan, is there any tax role for reducing our $1.4 trillion to $1.7 trillion debt this year -- deficit this year? Is there any role in tax increasing to help do that job?

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: I don`t think it`s a good idea, especially when we`re trying to come out of a jobless recovery in a slow- growth economy.

Look, we have got unemployment at almost 10 percent. The last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on the economy. Look, the worst thing for deficit reduction is a slow economy. You hit small businesses with these kinds of tax rate increases and you will slow down the economy further.

Look, 75 percent of those who will get hit with these higher tax rates are successful small businesses. Tens of millions of our jobs come from these small businesses. Now, if you try to blame these tax cuts and the wars for all of our fiscal problems, the numbers just don`t add up.
At best, 14 percent of the evaporation of the surplus came from these tax cuts. It all came from other circumstances: spending, economic growth declining, 9/11, all these other things.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

RYAN: So, I think what Joe earlier said is right, which is these taxes will go up. And I think that`s a mistake. And I think it`s going to hurt the economy.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you one question as a follow-up.

It seems to me every Republican that goes on "Meet the Press" lately is asked, where will you cut? They say nothing. They will not mention any cuts.
(CROSSTALK)

RYAN: Chris...

MATTHEWS: No, I have had Congressman Pence on, who won`t say any cuts.
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, you won`t cut -- you won`t raise taxes and you won`t cut spending.
RYAN: Chris...

MATTHEWS: So, in other words, all this bitching about the deficit doesn`t mean squat, because you won`t do either, raise taxes or reduce spending.

RYAN: Let me answer it, then.

MATTHEWS: Neither one.

RYAN: This year, Congress isn`t even doing a budget, but, last year, when we did a budget, I brought a budget to the floor that specifically cut $4.8 trillion of spending out of the budget and paid for all of these tax cuts and debt reduction. Two months ago, we put out $1.3 trillion in very specifically listed and enumerated spending cuts. So, I can go on with you on cuts. I can show you all the kinds of cuts.

[Newsbuster's Noel Sheppard] Good answer, right? Here was Matthews' astonishingly addle-minded response: 

MATTHEWS: But that`s one-three hundredth (ph) of the deficit. That`s 0.3 of 1 percent you`ve talked about.

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] One-three hundredth of the deficit? $1.3 TRILLION?

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] The lesson continued:

RYAN: Four-point-eight trillion dollars is not .3 of 1 percent of the deficit.

MATTHEWS: OK, 4.8 trillion. OK.

RYAN: And 1.3 trillion is not peanuts.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: It`s nothing to sneeze at.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me go. 

(CROSSTALK)

RYAN: Two things --

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] From here it became obvious what Matthews was up to. He's not interested in balancing the budget. He's certainly not interested in cutting spending.

What he's interested in is getting Republicans to say what programs they want cut so that Democrats can use that against them in the upcoming elections.

Ryan saw through the charade:

MATTHEWS: I just don`t see -- I just don`t see any program cuts. You`re talking in general terms, but let me tell you this: the major Republicans that come on television will not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They won`t cut the military. They can`t cut debt servicing. They won`t -- they won`t get rid of a major cost of government.

They`ll talk about, you know, let`s freeze discretionary spending or discretionary and domestic in some sort of generalized way. But they won`t get rid of government. They seem to like government. In fact, they love to talk against it.

RYAN: Go to Americanroadmap.org and you will see a very comprehensive piece of legislation that the CBO has scored that`s actually paying off the debt --

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] Indeed, this Roadmap was released last week, but I digress: 

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: -- with specific reforms to the entitlements you mentioned.

MATTHEWS: Name a major piece of the 1.4 trillion to 1.7 trillion. No, just take --

RYAN: OK.

MATTHEWS: -- just take a chunk out that 1.4 trillion by getting rid of a big program or good expenditure that people now watching can understand.

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] Straightforward question. Now watch Ryan give a straightforward answer that Matthews will summarily brush aside like a fly in front of the camera: 

RYAN: I would rescind the unspent stimulus funds. I would rescind all the TARP funds that aren
Now, you and I can get into a debate about Keynesian economics, whether it worked or didn`t. I don`t think it did. We increased domestic discretionary last year by 84 percent. I don`t think we should continue to build that kind of a base. Let`s go back and cut discretionary spending back to `08 levels.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: Rescind stimulus, rescind TARP and do a federal hiring and pay freeze. Those are just a few ideas that add up to $1.3 trillion right there.

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] Now, let's understand that at the beginning of this segment, Matthews asked Ryan how he plans on reducing our $1.4 to $1.7 trillion deficit. The Congressman just gave cuts to eliminate $1.3 trillion, and Matthews dismissed it totally: 

MATTHEWS: OK. Congressman Crowley, I still don`t see any cuts in entitlements there. But go ahead.

Cuts in entitlements? Matthews didn't ask Ryan to cut entitlements. Matthews asked him what he would cut to balance the budget and Ryan complied.

As such, Matthews was being completely dishonest. This wasn't about balancing the budget.
Matthews wants to get Republicans to say they'll cut Social Security and/or Medicare:

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: You asked me discretionary.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Crowley, let me ask you. What are the Democrats going to do about the deficit? Anything?

REP. JOSEPH CROWLEY (D-NY), WAYS & MEANS CMTE.: Well, I did notice there, though, Chris, was he didn`t mention at all his plan to privatize Social Security. Again, going back to the same old Bush agenda, the failed Bush agenda, the American people rejected in the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate.

(INAUDIBLE) as it may, I think Democrats have really taken steps to be more responsible. We`re working under a PAYGO system, pay as you go. And albeit there are some items that are cut off from that portion of it, we are attempting to get back a system that was proven to get our budgets in order to really -- under the Clinton administration --

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CROWLEY: -- really just -- really bring back more fiscally responsible Congress, more responsible government. It has worked in the past. Chris, I think it will work in the future. The president has said he wants to cut this deficit in half and I want to help him do that.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let`s get back to the bottom line. Are you comfortable going to the voters, Congressman Crowley, with a proposal to eliminate the $250,000 and above tax cut?

CROWLEY: I could tell you, Chris, in my district, there are very few people who make more than that money (INAUDIBLE) just a gross income of $250,000 or more. And I think, to live in the greatest country, as I said before, the world has ever known, it`s a small price to pay.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Congressman Ryan -- you have no problems defending tax cuts for people who make over a quarter a million a year?

RYAN: Small businesses -- go to Wisconsin.
(CROSSTALK)

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] Now watch Matthews either demonstrate staggering ignorance or shameful dishonesty:

MATTHEWS: No, no, individuals. It`s an individual tax cut.

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] And small businesses are owned by WHOM, Mr. Matthews? The lesson continued: 

RYAN: No, no. You have to understand, Chris, 75 percent of those people who pay that tax rate are small businesses who file as individuals, not corporations. That`s the problem with this economic argument, Chris, is when you think you`re just taxing rich people like Bill Gates, what you`re end up doing is you`re hitting successful small businesses. When we tax our employers more than our foreign competitors tax theirs, they get our jobs and we lose in global competition.
So, we ought to be keeping our eye in economic growth and job creation, what`s necessary to do, and that means low tax rates on businesses and small businesses in certainty. We have a whole new tax on certainty that`s hurting economic growth. We need to give taxpayers certainty that they`re not going to have a huge wave of tax increases in 2011 and then another in 2013.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: I would argue that`s depressing economic growth and costing us jobs.

Clearly not listening, Matthews went for another gotcha question:

MATTHEWS: So, when the debt commission comes back this fall, and as a two-to-one cut in spending and a $1 increase in taxes, you`ll oppose it?

RYAN: I`m a member of the debt commission. I`m working, my colleagues --

MATTHEWS: I know.
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: If the proposal is for $2 in spending cuts, and $1 tax increase, you`re going to oppose the majority position on that?

RYAN: I don`t think it`s good form to do table talk, what`s on the table or off the table in the debt commission. I`m hoping we could put a really good dent on the problem.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, I`m with you with that.

Thank you, U.S. Congressman Joe Crowley of New York --

CROWLEY: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: -- and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Thanks again to NewsBusters and Noel Sheppard

A Bold Plan for November Elections, Paul Ryan's Roadmap or Rely on Voter Anger Alone?

For months now we've heard that the GOP will unveil a new, a "Contract with America." We've expected the unveiling in September after the Labor Day holiday, and it appears John Boehner (R-OH-8th) is holding to that plan. But what if the Party decides to hold back on key issues, and skips controversy which may become cannon fodder for Democrats? How would you feel about candidates simply assuring voters that the party has a plan? Stir up anger in the voters and they'll flood to the polls to vote for Republicans? Put us in office and we'll show you what we can do. If that's what this race comes down to, I'll need to find something to smash. In the video below, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-1st) has an opinion and a roadmap.

 Paul Ryan

Among the most discouraging election news is an apparent debate within the Republican party:

Some of the party’s most influential political consultants are quietly counseling their clients to stay on the offensive for the November midterm elections and steer clear of taking stands on substance that might give Democratic opponents material for a counterattack…

 "The smart political approach would be to make the election about the Democrats," said Neil Newhouse of the powerhouse Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, which is advising more than 50 House and Senate candidates. "In terms of our individual campaigns, I don't think it does a great deal of good" to engage in a debate over the Republicans' own agenda.

Of course we must talk about Democrats, but spare us the "my good friend across the aisle" rhetoric. We've heard them all too often. We hate them!

Here's my roadmap:

1) Blame Democrats,

2) Tell us how you will slay the looming monsters, and

3) Make us angrier then we thought we could be.

4) Stop representing yourself and start representing the U.S. (Excellent suggestion by reader PoliticalJules)

Do them all. Don't leave out any one of the three four. Know that your political life and the futures of your families ride on this election.

 We don't need consultants. We need mountain climbers, tough politicians that come to work every morning remembering their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

If you can't explain to the people, the enormity of the issues facing us, you're not ready for prime time. Guess what? We know the issues. We want to know that you know them also. Congressman Boehner has promised:

"...a full plate of policy proposals that will give voters a clear sense of how they would govern."

Bring it on. We are ready to climb to the summit with you, but if you want to defeat patriot spirits throughout America, then tell us nothing. Tell us everything, and fan our fury at the same time. This is how we'll win big in November. Congressman Paul Ryan has some ideas and he says it's time to "decide what kind of country we want to be."





Rep. Paul Ryan - What Kind of Country Do We Want to Be? (video) 

Thanks to Hot Air

Greta Paul Ryan: No Dem Budget: $670 Billion in New Taxes Since Obama

On April 15 - Tax Day, we can count on Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to tell us how the budget goes, and basically, there is no budget to "go." Ryan was on Greta last night. The video is packed, as a conversation with Ryan  usually is, but...is it legal for this country not to have a budget? Ryan says it is the Republican's understanding that the Dems have chosen not to do a budget!  Be warned of whiplash when Ryan tells you in the Time of Obama, we have $670 Billion in new taxes levied on the American people - just since January 20th, 2009. $300 billion hit people making less than $250,000.00. See a video below.

Paul Ryan

Greta Van Susteren and Paul Ryan No Budget - Huge Taxes on those making under $250,000 (video)

Paul Ryan: Goodbye to America's Exceptional Freedom

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has an op-ed in Real Clear Politics. We know Ryan is a great Economist, and we've seen that he is a rousingly bold speaker. Here are some snippets of his article asking Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom? (If you do not have time to read it all, look to the bottom for the bold and red text):

Paul Ryan

Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots...but the "causes" of both are the same:

Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power ... or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?

Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity ... or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?

Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism ... or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?

We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you've never seen before!

We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind's noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it's our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity, or solid growth ... between living in dependency on government handouts, or taking responsibility for our lives ... between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around, or securing everyone's right to the rewards of their work ... between bureaucratic central government, or self-government ... between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.

What kind of nation do we wish to be? What kind of society will we hand down to our children and future generations? In the coming watershed election, the nature of this unique and exceptional land is at stake. We will choose one of two different paths. And once we make that choice, there's no going back....

If you are not yet convinced:

Am I exaggerating? Are we really reaching this "tipping point"? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood.

All told, 60 percent - three out of five households in America - were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama's budget last year will raise this "net government inflow" from 60 to 70 percent. Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus - through government - supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.

There is much more, and it is worth a read at RealClearPolitics.

Thanks to BigGovernment

Live Blogging Health Care Debate and Vote: 3:15 PM Stupak Get WH Deal?

Go to bottom of page for continuing updates.


9:03 PM EST: CSPAN says the final vote is expected about 9:30 10:30 PM EDT


This Bumped to top: 


STUPAK KICKBACK: $726,409 for airports. Read it at The Lonely Conservative.


The Cypress Times at 5:39 CDT has this headline:
Contributions now pouring in for Stupak's Opponent


Daniel Benishek is running for congress against Bart Stupak. Since Stupak announced that the cut a deal with Barack Obama and will now support Health Care Reform, Benishek’s Facebook page has been on fire with well-wishes, and commitments of donations. Benishek [R] is pro-life, and as a surgeon knows a little about Health Care.


5:07 PM CDT: Stop the ACLU points out that the Reconciliation bill cannot be voted on before the Senate bill is signed into law. You can see what happened below at the 3:22 PM EDT mark:

...basically it is saying reconciliation can’t be considered under House rules and to do so is to violate those rules which would result in a point of order where it could possibly be completely killed. It is important because of certain posturing of vulnerable Democrats. They have stated their vote of yes is dependent on certain fixes in reconciliation. Without this assurance they could possible feel too insecure to vote yes.

In the Stop the ACLU post is this comment from Ace of Spades:

So, I think, the attempt to divert SS payments into this bill is illegal (and of course it’s a gimmick in the first place to get a better CBO number, once again double-counting a revenue source) and so thereconciliation will fail. 

BREAKING: 6:12 PM EDT: On the rules violation mentioned above, it refers to a violation of Congressional Budget Act 310g of 1974 page 975, which reads as follows:

Sec. 310(g) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. -- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under section 301 or 304, or a joint resolution pursuant to section 258C of the Balanced Budget and emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act.

 So, I think the most important thing here, although there a couple of warning flags, is the last two lines..."old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program... More as available.


From The Hill:

"Republicans say that a provision in the reconciliation packages raises Social Security revenue, thereby violating rules regulating the reconciliation process."

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) said that changing Social Security in the Reconciliation legislation, will prevent the Senate from considering the Reconciliation.


Go to bottom of page for continuing updates, as they happen.

3:15 PM EDT: Politico is saying the White House and Rep. Bart Stupak has an agreement that will allow Stupak and his coalition to vote for the health care bill. Notice below that Republicans have made it clear that a presidential executive order cannot override law. 

The White House and anti-abortion Democrats have reached an agreement to diffuse the controversy over abortion in the health reform bill...planning a series of steps....Under the agreement, President Barack Obama would sign an executive order ensuring that no federal funding will go to pay for abortion under the health reform plans. 

Go to The Lonely Conservative to see the video from last year of Stupak saying that if there is no protection against public funding abortion, he will vote for health care. He has been lying all along.

UPDATE 4:52 PM EDT: TEXT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER

2:15 PM EDT: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) was just on the floor of the House with a motion to stop the legislation because the mandates are illegal.

PAUL RYAN: Fiscal consequences of the bill - horrific consequences. Calls the claims that the bill will reduce the deficit, the oldest trick in Washington - maneuvering the data. He is talking about the double-counting in Medicare.

250,000 jobs for 5 years to get back to 5% unemployment. Points out the new taxes on families, labor, small business - a tidal wave of red ink of debt. The debt will be crushing to our economy. The tax rate on his children, when they reach 40 years old, will be 63% on the middle-class, without adding this new unfunded entitlement on top of that.

The arrogant idea that Washington knows best, can organize and manage 1/6 of our economy and our health care. The Treasure 2009 Financial Report - the only to get it undercontrol, is if the Government  deeply rations health care. The bill says we will no longer trust the will and decisions of patients and doctors. Government knows best. Government will have to ration health care.

2:25 PM EDT: Patrick Kennedy is on the floor quoting and evoking his father, Ted Kennedy. Health care is not only a civil right, it is a moral right.

2:27 PM EDT: Still no word on Stupak or his coalition of 8. Still no word on an Executive Order from Obama, which will allow Stupak to vote 'yea.'

2:30 PM EDT: An onslaught of letters from Democrat constituents.

RYAN: We should be governing by the will of the governed. We have asked you to work on the uninsured, pre-existing conditions, the deficit. You have said no. One party rule.
Here's my own story. My mother-in-law is 5 years into Stage 3 ovarian cancer. Her meds are keeping her alive. If she was British, she would not have the drug that is saving her life. It is a fiscal Frankenstein.

Ryan calls for a Procedural vote Point of Order on the unfunded mandate.

2:20 PM EDT: FROM THE HILL: Bob Cusack: Democrats don't appear to have the votes unless a deal is truck with Stupak.

2:43 PM EDT: While the vote is on-going Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), in a CSPAN interview, says he does not believe they yet have the votes.

Nunes says there are 20,000 people at the Capitol protesting. Asked about Rep. Lewis claiming Tea Partiers called him "ni**er, Nunes said while it is not appropriate, they have the right and when you have a tyrannical government, we have to expect this. I LIKE THIS GUY.

2:50 PM EDT: Procedural vote still ongoing.

Another article by Bob Cusack on The Hill, says Democrat Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss) has advised those voting 'no' to do so early, and leave the floor immediately, because if they stick around they will be treated "like a pinata."

3:02 PM EDT: Ryan's motion to reconsider is defeated.

ISSA(R-CA) brings up another clause that the resolution violates. Passed sweeping earmarks, but this legislation is filled with earmarks, not the least of which is the Louisiana purchase and the Bismark. He wants to stop the bill until the earmarks are removed. He charges that the earmarks are bribes.

The House is out of order. Gavel banging over and over.

ISSA: This legislation not based on promises and bribes to certain districts.

SLAUGHTER: The committee report includes an earmark comment, but a "technical error" in that statement yields itself to Issa's point of order. Slaughter wants everyone to ignore it.

ISSA: Flabbergasted. Does that mean that under the rule excludes the Gatoraid kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the Bismarck Bank - will be removed. Slaughter says the final bill will not have the earmarks included.

ISSA: goes on the record saying his information is that the bribes will go to the President for his signature.

FROM THE HILL - timed at 2:52 PM - Stupak is still a 'no' vote - awaiting an Executive Order.

3:14 PM EDT: Rep. Pope (R-TX) This bill is unconstitutional. We will sue. This bill has special deals for special folks.

DREIRER (R-CA): We are guaranteed that the Senate Bill will become public law. He has only 15 seconds. Slaughter eats his time: I did not hear. He repeats it. Slaughter tells him his time is expired.

TIAHRT (R-KS): is it true that if the actions to overcome the Cornhusker Kickback. Louisiana Purchase, etc., the special provisions in the Senate bill, as were assured by Slaughter, wouldn't that bill have to go back to the senate for further action?

CHAIR:  will not answer and several times says he will not "interpret."

ISSA now asks if the House was Out of Order, as it was, and that is why Slaughter didn't hear, it was because the House was not in Order. Why would the clock continue running when the House was out of order and she could not hear.

The Chair says the The Republican who asked the question, with 15 seconds - and Slaughter didn't hear, didn't get his question asked in the 15 sec. allotted. Chair also said no one asked for a order of House not in Order.

3:22 PM EDT: Barbara Lee (D-CA) is getting face time.

SMITH (R-NJ) Bill will open the flood-gates for abortions. Health care plans allow federal dollars to pay for plans. We will all pay for abortions. Hyde amendment does not comply. Biggest increase in abortion funding ever.

SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): Executive Orders cannot override the clear intent of a statute. (rumored that Obama is signing an Executive Order to take abortion funding out of the bill)

ISSA Point of inquiry. Did I just hear a threat against a member of Congress. Are members being threatened.

THE CHAIR: cannot interpret.

THE HOUSE IS OUT OF ORDER. Issa for all members to cease conversations.

DREIRER (R-CA) Is it not true that the only thing we know is that the Senate bill will become public law. Are you passing the reconciliation bill...

WOW CHAOS:

SLAUGHTER: Yes the Senate bill will become law, along with the reconciliation bill.

DREIRER: I encourage everyone to read the rule - the Senate Bill and all the bribes becomes public law.

ISSA: Isn't it against the rules of the House to urge the Senate to take an action. It is now acceptable to lobby the Senate from the house floor?

CHAIR: Not necessarily.

SLAUGHTER: I did not address the Senate.

KINGSTON (R-GA) 3:35 PM CDT: Asks if the bill as good as you say it is, why are the bribes in the bill? $7.5 million to Hawaii, Montana more, $2 billion dollars to frontier states. NONE OF THESE DEALS COME OUT IN RECONCILIATION. House in an uproar.

TIAHRT: (R-KS): It was the impression given the members that the Reconciliation would take care of all the earmarks in the Senate bill, but there are earmarks in the Sentate bill that are not in the Reconc bill. Do the House rules apply or not.

CHAIR: Says the rules do apply.

TIAHRT tries to get the chair to clarify. THE CHAIR DOESN'T DO SO.

CHAIR call for house now consider the resolution.

TIAHRT calls for role call vote. 5 minutes for the vote ensuing.

4:00 PM EDT: Stupak is about to do a presser telling us that he caved. Rep. Gene Taylor, a confirmed 'no' vote, was not invited to joing Stupak in the press conference. Taylor is against on fiscal concerns. Taylor is on with Cavuto right now saying, anything done by executive order, can be undone by executive order.


STUPAK: Sanctity of life and the unborn - yada yada. We have an agreement with help of the President and the Speaker. There will be no public funding of abortion. We expect the Hyde amendment to prevail.


Apparently the Executive Order will be signed AFTER the legislation becomes law (I think he said).

Back on the House Floor: More disorder.

SLAUGHTER 4:10 EDT: Yesterday was the 45TH ANNIV of Bloody Sunday. Slaughter says Lewis was accosted by Tea Partiers - talked about Cleaver being spit-on. FRIENDs there is no proof of that - no vidoes, but there are video showing it a lie. See the lies here.

4:30 PM EDT: Rep. Alcee Hastings is talking about "morals."

SESSIONS (R-Tx) In Texas we have a Deceptive Trades law. That's what this bill is. It is not constitutional. The reimbursement to doctors is not in this bill. This is deceptive. He called Alcee Hastings a "radical."

COLE (R-OK) 4:43 PM EDT: Objects to the illegal, flawed and fiscally irresponsible.

LEE (R-NY) Western New Yorkers opposed to the bill.

BROUN (R-GA) 4:55 PM EDT: If you vote for this bill, you can never again say your anti-abortion or pro-life.

MACK (R-FL): Democrats believe in the power of government, not the power of the people. You may win today by arm-twisting and deception, but let's see who is still hear after the American people speak loud and clear in November.

5:00 PM EDT: Republicans  lined up, and are asking to revise and extend their remarks in opposition to this flawed health care bill

One Republican inserted the number of pages in the bill when he asked for "unamimous consent to revise and extend remarks in opposition of this health care bill." The CHAIR admonished him and said any embellishments would be charged with the time.

LUNGREN (R-CA) Reminding that the executive order does not take precedence over the law.

BOCCIERI (D) 5:32 PM EDT: Talking about Natoma Canfield who is sick and in the hospital. Claims that the Cleveland Clinic was putting a lien on her house. All untrue. She also qualified for Medicaid.

DREIER 5:33 PM EDT: It is essential to recognize that every American has access to affordable health care insurance. He quotes Dennis Prager: the larger the government grows, the smaller the people become. $569 Billion in job-killing provisions. Calls for 18,000 new IRS agents to make sure the new mandates are carried out. We can work in a bipartisian way that will immediately, immediately reduce the cost of health insurance. Expanding health savings accounts will help create health care. Pooling brings down costs. If we allow for the purchase of health insurance across state lines, everyone will immediately have access to affordable health care insurance. We need meaningful tort reform. I urge you to vote 'no' on previous question and 'no' on the rule.

CHAIR 5:40 PM EDT: voting now on three things: one is a suspension of rules vote (not sure of the questions). There are two 15 minute votes and one 5 minutes vote underway.

6:07 PM EDT: Looks like things are about to get underway again. I'm working on the text in red at the beginning of this post about violating the Congressional Budget Act.

6:23 PM EDT: Still voting. Here's a laugh: on CSPAN "Jason" called in and said he supports the bill. The interviewer asked what kind of insurance he has. "Jason's" reply: "I'm a federal worker. I have government insurance!"

Vote over to approve rule to begin health care debate.

6:42 PM EDT: Steny Hoyer is comparing MLK and civil rights march to the Democrat's fight for unconstitutional health care.

Charles Krauthammer is on TV saying tonight America changes - tonight we have National Health Care. Tonight insurance companies become contractors of the government.

6:56 PM EDT: Hoyer still talking.

6:58 PM EDT: MORE Republicans asking for Unanimous consent to revise and

DEAL (R-GA) The problems with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. It appears that we have run out of money. Deal says he is retiring and will become the governor of Georgia - and he and his state will join other states to sue against this illegal and unconstitutional legislation.

STUPAK (D-MI) 6:20 PM EDT: Stupak asks Waxman for assurance that there will be no funding for abortions with his Executive Order from Obama.

SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): Says the Executive Order will not have the affect of law. It cannot change the law. Executive Orders are not his "power." Executive Orders are just a piece of paper.

ROGERS (R-MI) If this bill were so great, why the lying, the cheating, the deceptions. "You can keep your health care." Not true if you read the bill. Dirty deal, after dirty deal...it is a disgrace. America deserves better.

RANGEL 7:45 EDT: Have to tell everyone that although he has recently been disgraced and had to step down from his committee chairmanship - today he is very proud.

Nunes (R-CA): You are bringing the ghost of communist dictators into this house. Fed gove has absolute control over health care in America. That is what this debate is about. Democrats will today lay their socialist utopia on the backs of Americans. APPLAUSE!







Rep. Devin Nunes: Ghost of Communism - Democrat Socialist Uptopia (video)

8:10 EDT: House clerk is reviewing "comments of Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ) - says they were challenged as violating House decorum.

Pascrell "apologized"

MISSED THE NAME 8:20 PM EDT: Republican saying if you think you will be able to keep your health care, Obama recently said "I think some of the provisions that got snuck in, might violate that.







Obama says some of the provisions to keep your health care may have been violated (video)

BOUSTANI (R-LA): Massive premiums, huge tax increases with cuts to Medicare. A sequel to the modern Greek tragedy now under way.

8:47 PM EDT: I'm still tuned in.

8:55 PM EDT: CSPAN has some comments up randomly: "penalizes businesses without health care,"   adds insurance regulations, adds new taxes on investments, etc. Very interesting! In their own subtle way they are pointing out the egregious costs and loss of liberty involved in this legislation.

HENSARLING (R-TX): We will wake up to find that when a loved one becomes ill, he will have to wait weeks to see a mediocre family. I reject the hubris and arrogance of this social engineering.

LUMMIS(R-WY): Americans ask that we get our financial house in order, and this administration responds by doubling the debt in 5 years, and tripling it in 10. Military asks us to leave their insurance alone, but we place it in this health care bill.

RYAN( R-WI): Full of gimmicks and hidden mandates. Why are so many people swarming the Capitol today? Here we are debating whether the government should have an even bigger role in our health care. Future path of this country - major turning point in American history. This is what kind of country we are going to be in the 21st Century. America is an idea. It's the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind. Our Founders got it right. Our rights come from Nature and Nature's God. Now you will ration these rights. Do we know believe that the government's goal is to balance the rights of the results of people's lives. We are fast approaching a tipping point where the people depending on government for their care will surpass those who don't. This is not sustainable. It is not who we are or who we should become.

CANTOR 9:45 PM EDT: Americans are appalled at this legislation.We hear you. We hear you loud and clear. We believe this government must stop spending money they do not have. You must not force those who fundamentally object to abortion, to fund it. We believe that families and patients should have the right to choose the doctors they want. This legislation will begin to take that right away. We are at a crossroads.

LUNGREN( R-CA): Is such a unaminous request in order under the Rules of the House. (missed what the request was.)

OBEY IS CHAIR: He would not clarify for Lungren and said it was not his job to do so.

BOEHNER: Today we should be standing together. Working to answer our country's call to confront rising health insurance. We should be looking with pride on this legislation and this work, but it is not so. Today we are looking at this bill who no one in this body thinks is adequate. We have failed to listen to America and to respect our constitutents. Look at this bill. Ask youself, do you really believe that if you want to keep your health care bill you can? LOUD RETORTS. GAVEL BANGS. Is this the time to burden every job creator in the land? Can you tell your senior citizens this will not limit their health care? No you cannot. It won't allow for taxpayer funded abortions? No you cannot not. Can you say this bill was written openly. HELL NO YOU HAVEN'T! Have you read the bill? HELL NO YOU HAVEN'T. Have you read the amendments? HELL NO YOU HAVEN'T. Have your read the Manager's amendment? HELL NO YOU HAVEN'T.

He now says you should have the courage to stand and announce your votes one at a time. Madam Speaker, will you grant my request? SILENCE. Will your Mr. Speaker grant my request that we have a call of the role?

CHAIR: Is that rhetorical?

Boehner repeats.

CHAIR: The chair will decide at the time the vote is taken. This is not it.

BOEHNER: This is the People's House. The process is broken. The institution is broken. This is not what Americans want. Millions have asked us to slow down. In this time of recession, they want us to focus on jobs and lower taxes.

They see one party closing out another, rather than a National solution. This body moves forward without their will. Shame on us. Shame on this body who substitutes their desires on this Nation. Around this chamber, looking upon us are the law givers. From Moses to .....we break the ties to history today in this Chamber. If we pass this bill, there will be no turning back. It will be the last straw for the people. We are going to held to account by those who have given us their trust. I beg you. I beg each and everyone of you...do not strike at the heart of this nation. I ask each of you to never let this happen again. It's not to late to begin restoring the trust of the people. I'LL HAVE VIDEO WHEN AVAILABLE.

 APPLAUSE.

Hey friends, do you thing each member will stand and give his vote for all America to see? Nah!

PELOSI 10:15 PM EDT: She is thanking the minions, she says with "humility." Just think we will be joining those who established Social Security and Medicare. In doing so we will honor the vows of our Founders who said we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalieable rights....this is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country. Praise for Obama.

She is going to save the taxpayer $1.3 Trillion. When it comes to health care for all Americans, politics is personal. It's personal for women. When we pass this bill, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition. More stories. She saw a grown man cry. He was too embarassed to tell his children that he needed help. Scary - she's talking about fraud and waste.

Thanking those who "dazzled" her with their knowledge. Thanking Ted Kennedy - someone began to chant: Ted-dy, Ted-dy! Now she's reading a letter from him, left for after his death.

The legislation has over 200 Republican amendments. We have come to this historic moment. Today we will finish the great unfinished business of our society. Health insurance is a right and not a privilege. We fulfill the Founder's words, that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thankfully that's over.

CHAIR admonishes the gallery.

BOEHNER 10:30 PM: Vote on HR 3590, the Senate bill. I believe the roll call vote was approved. Needs 216 votes.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Cutting out a few minutes to listen in. Krauthammer says Pelosi has scored an amazing political story.

MAJOR GARRETT: President will not sign the bill until Tuesday or sometime later this week, because the Senate will begin the Reconciliation consideration. This is surprising. If the Senate does not accept the Reconciliation, will the President not sign the Bill? Why the wait?

CARL CAMERON: If Senate tinkers with Reconciliation bill, it has to go back to the House.

216th vote on HR 3590 came at 10:44 PM EDT - The House bill now becomes the law of the land after Obama signs it. 34 Democrats voted no. All House Republicans voted nay. The vote was 219 to 212.


Vote on Reconciliation Bill comes next: HR 4872


10:48: PM EDT: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER just said he does not think this ever be repealed.
TOM DELAY is on with GERALDO and say he is "sickened." "Geraldo, you saw the ashes of the Constitution burning tonight."

CAMP is reading a motion to "Recommit." The very strict rules of the House waived the reading of all these motions, but...this one today does not protect the life of unborn children. Anything done by Executive Order, can be undone by Executive Order. It is the responsibility of this House to protect these children.

PITTS( R-MI): Massively pro-abortion. The facts remains. The Senate Bill achieves the opposite of current law. An Executive Order does not trump a statute. Saying the number of abortions will rise greatly. He is asking that the Stupak-Pitts motion be approved (restricts taxpayer funding of abortions.)

HOYER: The motion is inconsistent with Reconciliation. Republicans know the motion is not in Order.

SHAMELESS STUPAK THE LIAR: THE MOTION TO RECOMIT Purports to be a right to life amendment, but it is nothing more than an effort to deny 32 million americans health care. The motion does not promote life. It is Democrats who have set up the protection of life, because all life is precious. Dems guarantee that all life from the unborn child to the dying senior citizen is sacred.

Motion failed by voice vote. Repubs asked for the vote to be recorded.

11:06 PM EDT: MICHAEL STEELE IS ON WITH GERALDO RIGHT NOW, saying he will lead a movement to repeal the legislation, and he will do everything he can to fire Pelosi.

A Tweet from the Heritage Foundation says "what has happened today is intolerable."

GERALDO: Susan B. Anthony Defender of Life Award Candidate Fund has disinvited Bart Stupak to be honored by their organization this coming week.

DEMINT IS TWEETING: "I'll introduce a bill tis week to repeal this takeover." With all due respect, it will take far more than a piece of legislation this week. I don't know what to do, but will not do anything. Having said that, I love Jim DeMint.

GERALDO insists that federal funds cannot be use other than the life of the mother, rape or incest.
Steele is debunking.

Oh goody. Obama is planning to speak.

DEMINT TWEET: Sign the pledge to only support candidates that vote to repeal ObamaCare. http://www.repealitpledge.com/

CARL CAMERON: Three votes away until the fear of being unelected in November begins to grab Democrats.

11:30 PM EDT: Reconciliation bill is passed.

KRAUTHAMMER: The House will probably have to revote on this after the Senate finishes with it, which will probably happen. We are now on the path to Nationalized health care. Insurance companies become government utilities tomorrow. This will be a huge change to American life.

Good night all. I'm off to recover my sanity with a good night's sleep - well, with whatever sleep I can manage.

Linked by Memorandum - see what others are saying.

Paul Ryan Explains Double Counting in Health Care: Democrat Fuzzy Math

I want to hear the Democrat answer to Paul Ryan. So far, there hasn't been one. I want to hear how  Democrats Constitutionally support the mandatory purchasing of health care. Explain the Commerce Clause and how it applies to this legislation. I want to know how this president thinks he can ruin our industries - whatever the industry. I hope lawsuits are ready to go.

Rep. Paul Ryan Explains Democrat Double Counting - Fuzzy Math(video)

Pelosi Scrubs CBO Letter from Net: Paul Ryan Dems Abuse Confidentiality of CBO: CBO Score Not Official

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) revealed today that Nancy Pelosi received a letter from the CBO, which she failed to release, touting the CBO scoring of $940 billion - giddy that it is under $1 trillion, and failed to tell America that the CBO said the the estimate is not official because they have not yet factored-in the reconciliation bill - because it has not been made available for scoring. Pelosi is has seemingly scrubbed the CBO letter she received from the Internet. MSNBC and Human Events linked to it and both are coming up errors. No small coincidence. But you can see some of that CBO message to Pelosi below. Ryan also makes the point that Democrats have "abused the confidentiality of the CBO," and obviously she has lied again about health care legislation.

Rep. Ryan made this statement today:

The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate. Yet House Democrats are touting to the press -- and spinning for partisan gain -- numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm. 

Rep. James Clyburn stated he was "giddy" about these unsubstantiated numbers. This is the latest outrageous exploitation by the Majority -- in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional budget Office -- to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost.

Here is at least a portion of the CBO's private and special letter to Nancy from the MSNBC links above:

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

Pelosi Will Pass Senate Bill in House? Slaughter Rule Ruled Out? Reconciliation a Shell Bill

With a "shell" reconciliation bill posted online last night, it seems everyone is agreed that the House must pass the Senate health care bill and send it to the President for his signature, before reconciliation can take place. In other words, you can't reconcile a bill that has not been signed into law. Intrigue looms, however, as Rep. Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee seems prepared to "deem the bill passed" without a vote (straight from Pelosi's mouth) - even though the Senate Parliamentarian says, no... 'deeming' a bill passed will not happen in the Senate. See videos below.

Louise Slaughter - The Queen of Deem

On March 12th Speaker Pelosi acknowledged the Parliamentarian's ruling and said she will pass the Senate Bill:

"...the Senate Parliamentarian as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President."

Nevertheless, the Senate bill is not signed by the President and Pelosi the word is, she is working behind closed door writing reconciliation legislation.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) responded to Rep. Eric Cantor's question, and agreed with Pelosi: 

[CANTOR] ...that this House must pass the Senate bill first, it must be signed into law before the Senate can even take up the reconciliation package?

[HOYER]  I think the gentleman correctly states the Senate parliamentarian's position. and therefore I think

Rep. Paul Ryan also referred to the verbal comment made to Republicans from Democrat Senate Parliamentarian, Kurt Conrad. While Politico is saying Republicans misinterpreted Conrad's remark, Ryan doesn't see it that way, and it is reasonable to believe that Pelosi and Hoyer agree with Ryan.

Ryan said that the Senate parliamentarian's ruling that President Obama must sign a health care bill into law before the Senate can change it through reconciliation largely renders moot the attempt by Rep. Louise Slaughter to shield members from a direct vote on the senate health care bill. He said the idea would also violate Obama's call for an up-or-down vote. "that's not an up-or-down vote, that's sweeping it under the rug and into law," Ryan said:

From Politico, March 12th:

...it looks like House Democrats won't have to vote directly on a Senate bill they really don't like. The speaker hasn't made a final decision, but she told her rank-and-file during the meeting that the plan now is to craft a rule that would "deem" the Senate bill passed once they approve the package of fixes.

That means they would vote on the rule and the so-called reconciliation package, which would make changes to the Senate bill andonly requires 51 votes to pass in the Upper Chamber....

The question is, is Pelosi playing word games? She is saying the Senate bill must be signed by the President, but is she relying on the Slaughter made-up bill that the House can "deem" it passed without a vote?

Here is how the "shell" bill works. Philip Klein writing at The American Spectator says this is not the "actual reconciliation bill." He quotes Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) saying that this bill is a "shell" bill. Democrats will approve it, probably today, it will go to the Rules Committee, "be stripped," and then all the things they have supposedly negotiated will be added in.

Ryan says the process begins with the Budget committee approving the "shell" bill, then the bill goes to the Rules Committee. In the budget committee, Republicans are out-numbered 2-to-1, and do not have the votes to stop it. Republicans will not be able to offer any amendments, but can offer "motions to instruct the Rules Committee, which will hopefully show the outlandish maneuver Democrats are taking for what it is - unconstitutional. Illegal?

Ryan said that the Senate parliamentarian's ruling that President Obama must sign a health care bill into law before the Senate can change it through reconciliation largely renders moot the attempt by Rep. Louise Slaughter to shield members from a direct vote on the senate health care bill. He said the idea would also violate Obama's call for an up-or-down vote. "that's not an up-or-down vote, that's sweeping it under the rug and into law," Ryan said.

In The American Spectator piece, Rep. Ryan warned about focusing on reconciliation, which he says is a "distraction."

Paul Ryan's op-ed in today's Washington Post shows that nothing has changed and whatever you see in the 2309-page tome posted last night is up for embellishment or deletion.

Ed Morrisey, writing before it was clear that this is a shell bill, asked what the bill might contain that makes it ineligible for reconciliation and points out page 1557 of the existing reconciliation calls for the creation of a Comparative Effectiveness Center (panel) which finds ways to ration health care based on certain parameters, one of which in the bill is "Economics."  Much of the newly written bill will surely contain language from this one. We can count on the Comparative Effectiveness Center also being included.

Any part not directly germane to budgeting should, according to the rules, have to go through normal Senate debate.  Republicans will want to find as many of these as possible.

There is a post I think you'll want to read at Jus' Sayin'. Don't leave without taking a look at the very last statement on the page.

Hot Air has a quote from Steny Hoyer saying that "deeming" is demeaning to democracy.

Linked by The Thinker - thank you!



Pelosi says she will pass the Senate Bill in the House (video) Steny Hoyer says House must pass the Senate Health Care Bill (video)

Pelosi to House Members: Sacrifice Your Job for Health Care (and Me)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asked Democrat members of the U.S. House to vote for health care even if it means they lose their November 2010 election. How much sense does it make to ask lawmakers to ignore the will of the people who sent them to Congress in the first place? See video and transcript below.

Rep. Paul Ryan

On ABC's This Week, the Speaker said "we are not here just to 'self-perpetuate our service in Congress, we're here to do the job for the American people." She has no worries about her Liberal throne in the House. San Francisco, District 8 far-left voters, assure her an eternity in the House if she wants it, but she
needs a health care reality to hold together the most Liberal members of the House.

Chris Wallace interviewed Rep. Paul Ryan today on health care, and the votes Pelosi does, and does not have. The message is: the votes are not there for her now, but she muscles votes well. The full transcript is below the video. It addresses the questions and answers that are untruthful in the health care debate.

Related reading:
Pelosi Lies about Abortion: Catholic Bishops Agree Pelosi Lies
Quote of the Day - Nancy Pelosi
Paul Ryan: Health Care Full of Gimicks, Smoke and Mirrors - a Ponzi Scheme

Chris Wallace and Rep. Paul Ryan on Health Care

Transcript:






WALLACE: In the health care summit this week, there was one Republican President Obama didn't want to mess with, someone who knows as much about the issue as he does.

We want to go inside the numbers of health care reform with Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, the GOP's top man on the House Budget Committee.


Congressman, one of the big disagreements -- in fact, perhaps the first big disagreement at the summit -- was the question of whether or not the Democratic plan would raise or lower people's--

RYAN: Right.

WALLACE: -- health care premiums. Isn't it true, in fact, that most Americans would end up paying less?

RYAN: No, it's not true. The Congressional Budget Office says they will get higher premium increases, 10 to 13 percent. Private actuaries put those premium increase in the double-digit to triple- digit territory.

The Blue Cross plans are telling us they're going to see a massive spike in premiums for people. That's the problem. What we're hearing coming out of Washington, the rhetoric, doesn't match the actual facts that are underneath this legislation.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that, because I want to put up -- you know, for lack of anybody better, we're dealing with the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan agency, and here's what they said. Let's put the numbers up on the screen.

It said that for those in large group policies there would be somewhere between no change and a 3 percent decrease in premium costs. And it said for those in the individual market, the average premium, as you said and as Lamar Alexander said, would go up 10 to 13 percent.

But the CBO added that those folks would get better policies, and well over half would get subsidiaries, quote, "that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law." Congressman?

RYAN: Well, if you add these -- if you add subsidiaries, sure. But let's get this point clear. We're not going to have more insurance competition under this new law. We're going to have less insurance competition. That's going to increase prices.

And if you put more mandates on insurance, as this does -- this federalizes the regulation of health insurance, displacing states' rights -- that's going to make it more expensive.

So what this bill attempts to do is, yes, make health insurance much more expensive and then just have Washington subsidize more of it to try and limit people's out-of-pocket costs. That's a deficit nightmare. It's a cost nightmare.

And so you will be putting more costs onto the backs of the taxpayers at the end of the day here.

WALLACE: All right. Well, let's talk about the question of costs, because that was something that you brought up with the president.

RYAN: Yeah.

WALLACE: Another big disagreement is whether, as you said, the Democratic package bends the cost curve of government spending--

RYAN: Right.

WALLACE: -- up or down, as the Democrats claim. And again, let's go to the CBO, which says that the Senate bill would cut the deficit by $132 billion over the first 10 years.

RYAN: OK, so the CBO has to score the legislation that's put in front of them. And the legislation that's been put in front of them is full of smoke, mirrors and gimmicks.

Let me give you an example. It double counts Medicare cost savings. It double counts increased taxes for Social Security, increased premiums for this new CLASS Act.

If you take all the double counting out of the bill, which the CBO can't do because that's the way it's put in front of them, this thing has a $460 billion deficit in the first 10 years, a $1.4 trillion deficit in the second 10 years.

WALLACE: Well, explain the double counting, because you made a--

RYAN: Right.

WALLACE: -- big point of that at the summit.

RYAN: OK. So two things. This bill looks like it reduces the deficit because they raise taxes a half a trillion dollars over 10 years and cut Medicare a half a trillion dollars over 10 years to pay for six years of spending.

So 10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts with six years of spending makes it look as if this thing reduces the deficit. And then if you double count those tax increases, those Medicare cuts, which this does do-- 


WALLACE: Well, explain the double counting, though.

RYAN: -- that's the whole smoke and mirrors.

WALLACE: What do you mean, double counting?

RYAN: Right. So they're bringing in more money for premiums to pay for a new entitlement called the CLASS Act. You can't count that premium increase for deficit reduction.

They're taking more money in Social Security taxes, which is reserved for Social Security benefits. And if it's -- if you're not going to pay those benefits, then you can use it. But you can't count it both for paying benefits and reducing the deficit.

If you're going to say that all these Medicare cuts are improving the solvency of Medicare, which is what they say, then you can't use that money to spend on the creation of another government program.

So what they're doing is they're raiding a half a trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for a new government program. And you can't say that's going to improve Medicare, which is what they're saying. So--

WALLACE: But -- but--

RYAN: -- in each of these cases they're counting the numbers twice.

WALLACE: OK, but let -- but let me ask you this, because the CBO says -- let's -- again, we have to go back to them as the umpire in this whole deal--

RYAN: Right.

WALLACE: -- that once revenue and spending have all kicked in, because you talk about 10 years of revenue, six years of spending, they're saying that once it's all kicked in, the revenue will still exceed the spending. And in fact, it says, "The CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not cause a net increase in deficits -- would not cause a net increase in deficits in excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning after 2019."

They're projecting out 50 years and saying that if it has any impact on deficits, it'll be only minimal.

RYAN: Now, there are a couple -- I can go great into the detail here, but one of the things they're saying is--

WALLACE: No, please -- please don't do that.

RYAN: OK. One of the things they're saying is we're putting this new commission in charge of Medicare that is not elected, unelected bureaucrats, to ration care and put the clamps down on spending.

And they're saying if this commission does its job, cuts Medicare even more across the board, then that will happen. Other point is the president's own chief actuary of Medicare and Medicaid is saying quite the opposite. He's saying this is going to increase health care costs by $222 billion over the first 10 years, and so instead of bending the proverbial cost curve down, it's going up.

So when you actually look at a real-life look at how these numbers add up, and you take out the smoke and mirrors that the CBO can't take out in their analysis, it reveals these things as not being true.

Let me just give you another point.

WALLACE: Can I -- well, let me just--

RYAN: OK, go ahead.

WALLACE: -- because I want to go on to another subject, malpractice, because in the summit, Republicans kept talking about malpractice reform, limiting doctors' liabilities.

And in fact, House leader, your leader, John Boehner said that medical malpractice and defensive medicine are the single biggest driver of medical inflation. That isn't true, is it?

RYAN: Well, it's one of the biggest drivers. I think there are other contributing factors which are not being addressed in this bill. But it's a huge contributing factor.

WALLACE: Well, let me -- let me just pick up on that, because again, the CBO says -- and let's put up the numbers -- that malpractice reform would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent. That's one-half of 1 percent, about $11 billion in 2009.

I mean, the fact is drugs, and technology, and an aging population are much bigger drivers of medical inflation than malpractice, aren't they?

RYAN: Right. What CBO measures is, you know, the cost of government. And they say, "We'll have $54 billion of savings with medical liability reform."

What they cannot measure -- and I understand why they can't measure this. They can't measure all of that defensive medicine. They can't measure all the additional tests that are being ordered by doctors, not because it's good health care, because it's good liability protection. They don't measure all of that.

So there's a lot of stuff that is not being measured that we would appreciate from if you actually did medical liability reform. So what John Boehner is saying is if we actually get rid of the process of defensive medicine by having real tort reform, that would give us a lot more cost savings. Those are cost savings that the CBO just can't measure. WALLACE: All right. Let's turn to another subject -- and there's certainly no disagreement about the numbers here -- which is the question of coverage.

The Democrats say that their plan would cover 30 million uninsured -- currently uninsured Americans, would give them health insurance coverage. The Republican plan would cover 3 million. What happens to the 27 million--

RYAN: Well--

WALLACE: -- other Americans?

RYAN: Well, there -- there's lots of Republican bills. That's one particular bill the president was talking about. The president referenced the bill that I have with Tom Coburn, Devin Nunes and Richard Burr which covers those 30 million people, which gets us toward full coverage in America without all these new tax increases, without all these Medicare cuts.

So we believe we can get to the same coverage numbers without having a government takeover of health care.

WALLACE: Well, how do you--

RYAN: So we've been--

WALLACE: Very briefly and generally--

RYAN: -- offering these ideas all year.

WALLACE: -- how do you do that? How do you get -- how do you cover 27 million other people?

RYAN: We propose to do it through refundable tax credits, to give people the ability to have tax credits by ending the discrimination against people who don't buy health insurance from their jobs. And we say there are better ways of doing this.

So there are lots of Republicans' ideas that have been offered all session long to get at this coverage number without massive tax increases, Medicare cuts and a government takeover of health care.

The point is we haven't -- we've been frozen out of this process, Chris. The only time we've had bipartisan discussion, you've seen it, because it's been on TV. We've been frozen out of this process all session long, and it's quite clear to us that they're really not interested in engaging in collaborating and bipartisanship. They want to jam this thing through.

WALLACE: All right. We have about two minutes left. I want to get into one last area with you, preexisting conditions. All sides agree that there needs to be reform that prevents insurance companies from keeping out people who have preexisting--

RYAN: Right. WALLACE: -- medical conditions. The White House says -- Democrats say, "Hey, look. The only way you can do that is by having an individual mandate that everybody get insurance so you have these big pools. Otherwise, people will game the system. They won't get health insurance until they get sick. And then they'll say, 'I want to buy a policy.'"

RYAN: That is not the only way to do it. And the Republican alternative says there's a better way to do it, which is well-funded high-risk pools in the states that make sure we target subsidies to those people who have preexisting conditions.

You accomplish two things by doing that. You make sure that that person who has a chronic disease gets the need -- gets the care they have and they need so that they don't go bankrupt when they get sick. And by subsidizing their coverage, you actually lower the price of health insurance for everybody else.

Unlike the Democratic plan -- it raises everybody's health care cost. So what we're saying is you don't have to unnecessarily raise everybody's premiums to help those with a preexisting condition. Let's target and focus our support to those with preexisting conditions to help them get affordable coverage.

And by doing it the way we're proposing to do it, you actually lower everybody else's premiums. We think that's a better idea and you can do it without making everybody buy health insurance.

Look, this is a new--

WALLACE: And--

RYAN: Let me give you this. They're saying you have to buy what the federal government defines. We've never done that before.

WALLACE: And real quickly -- we've got less than 30 seconds left -- Congress -- Speaker Pelosi is saying, "You know, we're going to push the Senate bill and a reconciliation, a fixed bill, through."

Does -- do the Democrats have a majority of votes to get the comprehensive health care plan through the House?

RYAN: They do not now have the votes from our best count. I wouldn't count her out, because she is very good at muscling votes. They were down 24 on cap and trade the night before. They passed it by eight.

So the speaker is very good at making deals behind closed doors and muscling votes, but right now they don't have the votes.

WALLACE: Congressman Ryan, we want to thank you. As always, it's a pleasure, sir.

RYAN: Thanks, Chris. 




Others talking about Pelosi and Job Sacrifices:

The Astute Bloggers Alliance

The Lonely Conservative
Gateway Pundit