Congress, Federal Government, United States discussed on Washington Today

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

York has five new members in its congressional delegation. All of whom are Democrats Representative Alexandria Calcio Cortez joins the house as the youngest member of congress at age twenty nine. She defeated longtime Representative and then chair of the House Democratic caucus. Joe Crowley in a primary election last summer voters in New York's twenty second district elected Anthony Brindisi to congress. He previously served seven years in the New York state assembly before that it was an attorney in private practice Representative. Antonio Delgado was also an attorney prior to his election to congress, but he also had a brief career as a rapper releasing one album a couple of years after his graduation from Harvard Law School. Max rose was elected to represent the eleventh district, which includes Staten Island and southern Brooklyn. He previously served in the US army, including leading a platoon in Afghanistan or he was wounded by earning a purple heart and bronze star Representative Joseph Morelli joined the house. A few weeks ahead of his classmates after winning both a seat in the one hundred sixteenth congress and an election to fill the seat of late congresswoman Louise slaughter for the remaining weeks of the one hundred fifteenth. Congress congressman Morelli had previously served in the New York state assembly since one thousand nine hundred eighty one including five years as majority leader new congress new leaders, watch it all on C span. At the top of the hour. More Washington today. Now, more of our conversation this morning on the Washington journal, and we talked about the cost of the government shutdown with shy. Other bipartisan policies. Rebate, wisconsin. Bob is Republican good morning. Morning guys. I just have a couple of questions I had a couple of Hondurans who took my job would they send all their money home? Is there a way that we can tack that for the wall or reporters Curie number two has the CBO ever been right? That's just I don't know. I don't have the answer for anything. Thank you. Good question. So I I would expect that those workers get taxed on their income already through income taxes or payroll taxes. Obviously it depends on their employment situation. Whether they're reporting their earnings as all Americans everyone living in America is required to do. But they should be paying income taxes on those earnings that they have on the second question this. The Congressional Budget Office is rarely right to the decimal point. And that's because there's a lot of uncertainty in all of these projections that they make they emphasized throughout the reports that uncertainty and that they are not going to ever hit it right on the Mark. But they are considered the best forecaster that we have for government spending and taxes that we are expected to take in as well as a pretty good forecaster of economic factors that doesn't mean that they're going to predict when the next recession is going to happen. Very few people are able to do that certainly that's not their expertise. But they do give a very, balanced and neutral sense of where we are headed as a country. In fact, the scenario that they paint. As a baseline, meaning without any expert expected changes is almost an optimistic scenario in the sense that they are instructed as to how they score all of the programs in the federal government and the taxes that are taken in, and they have to expect the congress is not going to make changes to those programs when they make what's called a baseline. They also print what's called an alternative fiscal scenario, which I would call a more realistic scenario of what is likely to happen. So for example, the tax cuts that were passed the year before last many of those are expected to expire in twenty twenty five and the alternative scenario, the more realistic scenario in my mind shows that those will be extended into the future if we ever reached that point, and they base that in part on past example, where we had tax cuts that were large broad base that were on the borderline of expiring back in two thousand ten all of them got extended for two more years. So twenty twelve most of them got extended after that. It's very hard to get temper. But long lasting and broad-based tax cuts. That are set to expire allowing them to expire. So those are the types of changes they make to their baseline to try to make a realistic projection of where the budget is going in the future. We've talked a lot today today about the February fifteenth deadline coming up for that conference committee to come up with some sort of deal on border security, but look ahead to another deadline March second is when the debt limit is set to be reinstated. Remind us why it was suspended the debt. Limit is what restrains the federal government from borrowing further to fund its operations as we talked about. There's a large gap right now between the spending we're doing and the revenues were doing. So it does need to continue borrowing on the order of about nine hundred billion and growing per year the federal debt limit was suspended as part of a budget deal. I believe a little over a year ago about a year ago now to come back into effect on March second, and the reason they do that was to give to acknowledge that we have spending that Alpes. Our revenue for another period of time. But then it comes back into effect. So that congress has decided they want to reevaluate that decision and decide whether we should allow the government to borrow more. What's important to recognize that the borrowing is just the result of spending and taxing decisions that congress and the president have already made so not allowing us to pay. The bills is a very ineffective way to run the government to say that we owe this money, we owe this debt because we borrowed and then we're not going to be able to either pay the interest on it or borrow more to pay the contractors or businesses were providing goods and services to the federal government or send out checks to Americans all across the country. It's expected to come back into effect on March second the actual quote unquote deadline where something catastrophic could happen. If action isn't taken probably won't happen as we project at the bipartisan policy center until the summer of the fall, we have more resources on the website at the bipartisan policy center, the people can go to to find out more about development. It's by partisan policy dot ORG time for a few more calls, which I marines waiting in Greenville, Mississippi, a democrat good. Morning. Good morning. I just had a statement. I wanted to make while everybody is distracted. I feel and focused on those handful of people that are coming across the border to work a lot of kinda minimal labor jobs. What is being done or what about those that you speak to the legal immigrants that you speak to the telephones every day they worked for the fortune five hundred companies major insurance companies credit card companies and all these fortune five who's got these big tax cuts. But you can't hardly order pizza now without someone picking up, and what Trump called is s whole countries. And I wanted to just kind of make that statement concerning that. Why why do you think they're illegal immigrants when you talk to them on the phone because they don't because they're in another country. They are not a part of this country. They're picking up overseas. So they are not a citizen of the United States. So you don't think companies should be able to have call centers overseas. I mean, there's jobs. They're complaining about the ones just walking across on foot to come work jobs. But because they're are picking up all phones overseas, and they are not a legal immigrants of the United States. I would consider them as illegal immigrants, but just happened to work for fortune five hundred companies picking up a phone. I don't see the difference. You can explain it to me. Cycads any thoughts? Well, there are call centers that these companies have where they employ people overseas to serve some of the functions of their businesses that simply comes from the fact that labour costs overseas are often cheaper than they are here in the United States. There are policies that we can try to put into place in terms of taxes or investments that we make that try to make our economy more competitive in our labor force more competitive, but it is difficult when you're looking at other countries overseas that just overall have much lower costs of living and wages to make ourselves competitive with those when those options are available. So there are certain positions where? That need to be filled where it's almost impossible to make US workers competitive with those workers overseas because you'd effectively be having to pay them significantly below minimum wage in the United States for one more. Call been waiting in Florida Republican good morning. Good morning. Go ahead, sir. About the wall. You know, I think we should have the wall. I think we need the wall. Trump ran on building. The wall is in. He got elected for. And as far as Democrats go. I think there's probably a few Democrats that would go along with the wall. But then you got Pelosi with a sense of all the way around her house, and she won't even give a dollar Bill to the wall. And if you took everything that we cost cost us for all I'm illegally inside are here, taking your they? They get mad because they separate the baby they did hospitalization. They get food. And they they get all this. If you just took one half of that money and spend it on the wall, you would have that wall. And then some and you would have less expenses on them a mental on the immigrants being here on food and housing and everything else and are not even citizens the reading the Democrats want them in there. So they can get the votes, and that's what Pelosi and Pelosi so mad because Trump got in that she's not going to give in or nothing and why. Why does she have a wall around her house got so shack, we get this statement a lot on what legal immigrants are getting in the United States in terms of benefits. Have you done research on that? Can you talk a little bit about that? That's not my primary area of expertise. There is there are some programs that are available to even people who are not here legally, certainly many government programs that are accessible to all Americans things like social security. They are not eligible for. But I think to some extent in terms of the spending on those elements distracts us from the bigger picture, which is that we have a rapidly increasing federal debt the interest that we pay on that debt is actually going to exceed the spending that we do as a federal government on the Medicaid program for all low income Americans across the country in several years, and then the entire spending that we do on the defense department by twenty twenty five that's pretty astounding that we're going to be paying more in interest costs overseas talk about payments that go to overseas countries than we are. Or to spending on our department of defense, which protects the American people we need to figure out how we're going to address those problems going into the future with things like entitlement reform, reforming social security reforming the major healthcare programs that doesn't mean they need to go away. That doesn't mean they need to be overhauled..

Coming up next