You both raised Social Security and medicare, but jack lew told me a couple years ago that Social Security longterm is solved and from what people have paid and for some 25 years and medicare for some 10 years and, according to him, and according to federal law, i think they dont even count in the deficit because they are on separate tracks. So i think it would be helpful if you could does clear up, and this is a terrific farm to do it, and these two questions at the constitutionality of the debt ceiling legislation through the house and senate on the pay issue in payment of the public debt in Social Security, whether they have enough in their surplus from what people paid regardless of what the government is taken out, or what they have paid in counts. It is count in the deficit numbers picture trying to do something about . Who wants to go first . Congressman price. Yeah, the debt ceiling affairs. Nobody is talking about paying the data. Nobody is talking about not paying the public debt. What were talking about is making sure we get are spending under control so we can create an economy thats vibrant and be able to cover the debt of this great country without the austerity measures weve seen in other countries. So theres two things you got to think about. The debt thats been incurred. Yes, the nation is good for that type. And the path forward. Are we going to ban that down so they can actually have an economy that is vibrant and create jobs, or are we going to go as far as the eye can see . You could do some point we physically cannot create the wealth in the country to cover the data. So is it appropriate role . Im a physician. Im not a constitutional lawyer. My reading of it says all spending starts with the house of representatives. Article i is with the spending begins and where congress has troopers spending. Otherwise you have an executive that isnt just instituting carrying out the laws of the land, it is for me the last of the land and that is i dont believe our system. Social security, medicare, near and dear. 20 years is the time that Social Security funds out of my need to be to cover the current promises to beneficiaries at that time. 20 years seems like a long time to a 5yearold. To you and its not too long. 1993 was almost a day ago and 15 and its important that we plan for it because you cant solve it the day before. 10,000 individuals reach a certain age every single day. Time does to my generation. Baby boomers reach retirement age every single day. Social security and medicare are the most predict about economic challenges that we have been were not addressing it. Medicare is closer. 24 is when it runs out of money. What happens when it runs out of money . That is a trite phrase, runs out of money. They were not the resources to be able to provide health care toward seniors that have been promised health care enough program. Thats absolutely reckless and irresponsible. Thats the current course we are on. Thats the path of the current law. That is why we played medicare, medicaid and Social Security need appropriate restructuring so we can save and strengthen and secure those programs for the individuals that have been promised a spanish face. Its wonderful positively see that they dont keep washington in charge. As a physician will allow patients and parents and doctors to do by making medical decisions and that the federal government. If you think which you want for yourself and your family, it is you and your family and physician to make medical decisions, not somebody else. Congressman van hollen. Thank you. First of all, on the debt ceiling issue. Ii think that people remember te summer of 2011, you have lots of House Republicans who are threatening not to increase the debt ceiling, which means the United States would default on its obligations. It is important to understand what the debt ceiling is all about. Just to provide the ability to pay for bills and obligations already o. Wayne, already owing under the law. If the federal government were to wake up and decide not to pay those bills, it would be like any of us getting up after having gone on about things on a credit card and say weve got those things, but were not going to pay for them. In every sense those obligations has been voted on previously by congress over the years, which is why people say so clearly, dont mess around with the public debt in the u. S. Senate because he would have a negative impact on our economy and the world economy. Tom mentioned that nobody is suggesting we not pay the public debt. That qualification is important here because earlier the numbers used for the u. S. Over 16 trillion, which was the entire data. The public debt is a little over 11 trillion. There are many of our republican colleagues who have said its okay for the United States to default on its other nonpublic obligations. And they said thats why theyre not going to raise the dead skin because the president will prioritize, pay the bond holders, but its okay if that means he has to put pressure by not pay another obligations, which includes Social Security, medicare, payments to troops and other kinds of obligations. Im not one of those. Im not saying you are. Theres a piece of legislation in the house and that is playing with fire and our economy. Its totally irresponsible. So to get to bobs question on the constitutional issue, i dont know the answer. There is a legal answer to that question. The president S Justice Department has looked at that. At least so far they dont feel comfortable with that, with concluding that is the way out of it. They may need to look at it more, i dont know. Its a very legitimate question and he pointed to the words in the constitution. What do you pick for compensation, we cannot talk about doing that, but there is a legitimate constitutional concern about changing pay midstream, which is the constitution, something we need to have a constitutional matter. Well continue to freeze congressional pay us we should and lead by example. Quickly on Social Security and medicare, tom said Social Security is 100 solvent until the year 2034 thereabouts, meaning trillions of dollars in the trust fund are adequate to fully fund Social Security after that date. After that day, its not as if the trust fund goes to zero. Trace adkins to pay 75 cents on the dollar. So yes, we should act, and i agree, we should act sooner rather than later to address the shortfall. The wealthy should not be doing is balancing the rest of the budget on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries. On medicare, the medicare hospital todd, part i is fully solvent until about the year 2023 at which point it would also pay a 75 cents on the dollar. But its also important to remember that part d, dr. Payments and part d, Prescription Drugs is not paid for out of a trust fund and not solvency assessment does not apply to them. That is part of our overall budget picture in those funds are part of our whole discussion about the budget deficits and revenues and a very important piece. Just in closing, remember as part of the Affordable Care act, we actually saved over 715 billion in medicare. This is a much discussed issue in the last campaign, but thats according to the medicare actuary because we ended overpayments, large public subsidies to some of the private payers but then medicare and by achieving savings, it means dollars coming into that trust fund go further and that is why we were able to extend the light of that Medicare Trust fund, the hospital part a trust fund. We should build on that model going forward. Great. Rebecca, if you want to grab the mic as we roll around. You had your hand up first in the yellow shirt in the back. Identify yourself please, who you are with. Thank you. Andrew taylor with the associated press. I wanted to ask dr. Price, in your upcoming resolution, one of the things about the ryan budget didnt come to balance was because you chose to protect Medicare Beneficiaries at or near retirement. Of which are promising to come to balance, kenya maintained, can you keep that promise, which a lot of their members repeated in the campaign . Yeah, i think so. The numbers will dictate that obviously in our coolest invention is to get a balanced budget within a 10 year period of time and the reason for that is to send the signals to the markets, yes, that people would get our fiscal house in order and not in and of itself creates economic vitality. Whether or not its exactly the same number of years of the same age, youve got to back into that based upon the equation and numbers coming into the federal government. The baseline we can get we, but it looks better because the policy of thats been adopted, so its easier is not the right word, but its a closer gag to counterbalance with relatively more subtle changes within the policies the government currently is. Chris, do you want to respond to that also . I want to go back to the point i made earlier. This is sort of the economic folly of picking arbitrary were trying to have balance. As i said, the republican budget from last year didnt have balance until 2040, best Case Scenario without the congressional budget office. So our focus in the question should be what kind of economy to my 10 years from now . What kind of commitments to we want to keep to her seniors and others and make sure that the deficits in that year are not dragging down the economy and absolutely we should act now to do that. But you know, why lash year hitting balance and 2040 was fine and all of a sudden 10 years is the number is obviously totally arbitrary and those of you who follow this conversation delicate on internal discussions within the House Republican caucus over the decision to bump the debt ceiling by three month and an exchange, the speaker made a commitment to a lot of the more conservative members of that caucus that they would hit this target 30 years earlier than their previous ash is a 20 years earlier than the previous budget under those rosy assumptions. Why dont we go right to you. Identify yourself. Im roxanna chaump was Bloomberg News with a question for dr. Price. He led at the strategy for these budget bills and sequester ncr. The question i have, is there any consideration among House Republicans to bring the continuing resolution first before march 1st handset that level of spending that the sequester with that . Server that the first . The timing for that is less important than the level of spend name. Our goal is make certain we continue to responsibly pull Discretionary Spending, federal spending to the lovely creature of the budget control act of 2011 and that discretion level is about 974. So whether it comes before the sequester is dealt with, if the sequester is dealt with in different than current law it will start my come before march march 27. My preference is sooner rather than later but its important for people to know that our desires to make the federal government continues to operate under current spending levels as defined by the sequester. Front row, right here. Things, i am a Congressional Correspondent with the congressional outlook. My condolences for the death of your father. He was a wonderful man. There seems to be vocabulary difference between you two and kind of shows a difference in philosophy. You refer constantly to spending. Refer constantly to investments. Is there any way republicans can look at some Government Spending as investments, particularly in infrastructure . And is there some way democrats can look at some spending is perhaps not necessary right now, that it is overspending for certain interest groups. First of all, just in terms of explaining the language of investment, the American People make these kind of investments on their own behalf all the time. People invest in their education. People take out student loans. They borrow money to invest in their education because it will give them a positive return over their lifetime. Companies investing capital in equipment. As a country, we need to invest in infrastructure of our roads, bridges, airports, broadband. Theres no economist to say you cant get some important return of tradeoffs in investments, but these are investments for the public good and the private sector wont take on. We cannot some partnerships. In terms of spending, the short answer is yes. Over the last two years, weve reduced the spending and put a spending cap so for his decisions well talk about in terms of greater prioritization over the next 10 years. The discretionary portion of the budget down below the level of the eisenhower as a percent of gdp, that is pretty sequester. So we should look for other. We should constantly evaluate programs and eliminate ones that are not working. On the discretionary side of the budget, that is that the appropriations process is supposed to do. Paul ryan and i teamed up on legislation to put an extra layer of scrutiny. But theres also mandatory spending. A lot of spending is on the mandatory side. I mentioned in my remarks, excessive crop subsidies in agriculture subsidies, which we propose to eliminate as our plan to replace the sequester for this year. Just as the site now come many subsidies were included in a reconciliation for the reprioritization is sequester. So there is some agreement here. Maybe we can use that going forward. Folks back home town of a major investment coming out of washington, day care taxes. The federal government cant spend a single dollar that was taken from somebody. Appropriately theres a level of tax revenue from the federal government, funds things the government not to do. What is the role of the federal government . Is it an ever expansive Government Data suggest we would suggest has resulted in policies and programs that are having individuals. More poverty, more dependents, lower quality of health care, high energy race. Is that the kind of government we want to buy a . Is that the government we want to put our money and . I dont think so. Weve got to step back and responsibly address those. Do we believe theres appropriate things for government to spend money on . Absolutely. I didnt support the stimulus package of 2009 because i thought it would do what he did, which is a solo bunch of money and not get remarkable results for our economy. In fact come in at her harmed her ability to come out of the recession. One of the things they could have done had it been spent and a different way would have been to revitalize the infrastructure of our country. Water, sewer, rose, huge investments. But a fraction is used for something resulting in the public goods. So there are things government ought to spend money on an infrastructure is one of them. David morgan with readers. I would like to know if you expect the north Korean Nuclear test to accelerate efforts to get a deal done on the sequester. [inaudible] i do have a budget question actually. How much time is there to get a budget deal done before the 2014 Midterm ElectionCampaign Takes over the debate . Enough. Look, im really enthusiastic about the opportunities we will have two contrast the budget that House Republicans will pass through both the committee and the forward and i think it will be a bipartisan endeavor. In the first Senate Budget in the last four years. And hopefully what will come out of that is what i took him out which is a Conference Committee and the budget. For some of you who have only been paying attention for a short time, that will become a novelty because it hasnt been done. The senate hasnt done a budget. The timeframe you identify is probably through the end of july before the august break and maybe into a little bit of the fall. Im hopeful we can be said because the challenges are remarkable. If we dont address the challenges, the reason to address financial number issues is not sincere or equal to zero on the page or two equals two. So we can get the economy turned around and tried to project creation. On the first part of your question, its an important link because the secretary pineda has said, planning for the sequester azhar demands we have to make adjustments, for example an Aircraft Carrier deployments in certain parts of the world and it was heartening to hear senator mccain suggest sunday that he was one who is willing to look at closing some of the specialinterest tax breaks, but that was important to preventing the sequester and making sure we should not see these acrosstheboard cuts. I went to put myself in the hopeful optimistic and on the second part of your question. If the house passes a budget and has passed a budget the last couple of years, in many ways the budget control act substituted for the budget for the last two years. That at least set the appropriations levels. The word now when he appeared with the senate is going to take up and pass a budget and then you will go to this other process. That process will include all the disagreements you heard this morning with respect to the right mix of spending cuts and revenue. So again, the issue is whether were going to overcome those differences that have prevented us from moving forward in the past. I didnt see the link in your question. Im impressed. So im sorry i cut you off. Rebecca in the back row. Its actually sort of the same question, but its so important beyond the rhetoric to get that budget resolution done and accomplished. Do you think leadership will push for a . Is there anyway to get a conference budget resolution this year . Carry young friend cq. Look, is there obviously is a theoretical possibility, but i also believe theres more than a theoretical possibility. But the question is again whether or not theres really a willingness on all sides to come together and make the necessary compromises. Obviously the white house i think the white house would have to be very involved because the budget resolution is simply a nonbinding agreement between