ago. the biggest problem with pen wharton s report is that they didn t model the actual bill. for one thing, they incorrectly assumed just 1.56 trillion in offsets when the bill back better agenda is fully paid for with over $2 trillion that the president outlined in the build back better framework. neil: what do you think of that, professor? right, the legislation has written in terms of the build back better framework we estimate at 1.5 trillion. and we issued a brief last week that compared the numbers versus the white house. so we just have different numbers. and a disagreement about how much each item would bring in. that comes down to some of the
crunching the numbers. the faculty director. professor, thank you for joining us. how did you come up with the much, much higher number? it was a reflection as is, as actually written, we estimate would increase spending by about 1.2 trillion over the next decade. and to raise about 1.56 trillion in new revenue. we ve been asked by members of congress what would happen if some of the temporary spending was made more permanent, such as the child tax credit. that is where there s this alternative scenario we have to make a total of spending would be about 4.26 trillion. so more than double over the next decade. spew on the white house took up this figure that you and your colleagues came up with and disputed it. this is from just a short while
gates and warren buffet that have done the billionaire challenge. how much will you give away and make a commitment and do it. there s $1.56 trillion in student loans. these not enough. the other problem is, the creditors have to be paid. you can t wipe it out. not say screw the creditors. i don t want young people to feel the burden but you have the morale hazard. you took out the loan, you have to pay for it. look at purdue university. former governor mitch daniels has figured out a way to hire good people. you want to hire emily? she s going to graduate in two years. you re going to put forward 60% of her tuition. great. sign a contract, emily you have to work there two years. might be a good relationship. the other thing is companies willing to pay for your student
republicans do not care about budgets, debt, they just care about tax cuts for very wealthy people. is that unfair of me to say? i think that s very fair. let s be clear, the deficit isn t new. mr. mcconnell s been in the senate since 1984. i m pretty sure we ve had a deficit all that time. doesn t mr. mcconnell own the deficit as much as anybody. it s a wonderful talking point. i get the talking point. i was around in 2001 for that tax bill. i was on the floor. i worked that bill. we had a surplus at that point in time and that bill, joy, was supposed to give us more of a surplus, supposed to give us more jobs, et cetera, et cetera. it did not. it failed. even the 1986 tax bill was revenue neutral. they couldn t even do that in 2001 and they re not doing it this time. $1.56 trillion added to the deficit. now hold on. all of our republican friends
including high-speed rail, got it; 148 billion for research and development and also $100 million more to expand the smithsonian museum. the president saying it is essential for investment in our future. my next guest agrees. congressman kucinich, a democrat from ohio. go to see you, sir. all this money, half a trillion we are talking about here over a five or six-year period for infrastructure, hundreds much billions more on research and education, i put it to you, we have to borrow that money and we have a deficit of $1.56 trillion. we cannot afford it. guest: part of the eke indication to keep in mind you are building infrastructure you are creating jobs which then has a way of people paying money interest the treasury through their taxes and that, then, will reduce the deficit. this is a good approach but we have over $3 trillion in