U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

63–032 2011

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET 

OVERVIEW WITH OMB DIRECTOR 

PETER R. ORSZAG 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 3, 2010 

Serial No. 111–40 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

WALLY HERGER, California 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Jon Traub, Minority Staff Director 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of January 27, 2010, announcing the hearing ....................................... 2 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Peter R. Orszag, Director, Office of Management and Budget .. 6 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Corporation for Enterprise Development, statement ............................................ 50 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET 

OVERVIEW WITH OMB DIRECTOR 

PETER R. ORSZAG 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles B. Rangel 

(Chairman of the Committee), presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–3625 

January 27, 2010 

Chairman Rangel Announces a Hearing on the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview 

with OMB Director Peter R. Orszag 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel today announced the Committee will hold a hearing on President Obama’s budget proposals 

for fiscal year 2011. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 3, 

2010, in the main Committee hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office 

Building, beginning at 2:00 p.m. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be limited to the invited witness, the Honorable Peter R. Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

On February 1, 2010, President Barack Obama will submit an overview of his fiscal year 2011 budget to Congress. The budget overview will detail his Administration’s tax and spending proposals for the coming year, many of which fall under the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

BACKGROUND: 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Rangel said, ‘‘Director Orszag faced a 

difficult challenge in helping the President develop and prepare a budget 

at a time when we need to simultaneously create jobs and strengthen the 

economy while paying attention to our country’s long-term fiscal outlook. 

Director Orszag has testified before the Committee on numerous occasions 

and I look forward to hearing from him again.’’ 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for 

which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide 

a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit 

all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of 

business Wednesday, February 17, 2010. Finally, please note that due to the 

change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical 

problems, please call (202) 225–1721 or (202) 225-3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
3 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

f 

Chairman RANGEL. The Committee will come to regular order, 

with the exception of some of our Members who elected to pass on 

the Secretary of Treasury so that they will have an opportunity to 

lead us off this afternoon with Mr. Orszag. So we have Mr. 

Boustany, Mr. Heller, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Higgins, and 

Mr. Meek. 

So I will yield on my opening statement to the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Camp, and then we will move on to listen to Mr. Orszag. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will just submit my 

opening statement for the record so we can get right to questioning. 

Chairman RANGEL. I will do the same. 

Welcome. We look forward to working with you. We want to be 

as supportive as we can, under the circumstances. And we do hope, 

as with our other witnesses, that you take advantage of the invitation that we may have in a bipartisan way to walk us through as 

we share with you some concerns we have in an unofficial point of 

view, where we can have a better understanding of where the 

President would want to take us and what obstacles he may have 

in that process. 

So you may proceed as you see fit. And we would hope that you 

can limit your testimony so that we will have time for questions 

and answers. Thank you again for coming. 

Mr. Orszag. 

STATEMENT OF PETER R. ORSZAG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. ORSZAG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I would 

welcome the opportunity to sit down with you in other settings on 

a bipartisan basis to talk through some of the issues. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
4 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget focuses on three things: 

Job creation in the near term, strengthening the middle class, and 

beginning the difficult work of putting us back on a path to fiscal 

sustainability. 

First, a little bit of economic background. We have just come 

through a year in which we averted a second Great Depression. At 

the end of 2008, the economy was declining at more than a 5 percent annualized rate. At the end of 2009, it was increasing at more 

than a 5 percent annualized rate. Although real GDP is now expanding, the employment market remains too weak. The unemployment rate is 10 percent, and there have been 7 million jobs lost 

since December 2007. 

In that context, the President has put forward a jobs and wages 

tax credit intended to spur hiring, especially among small businesses, along with other key investments, including in infrastructure, education, clean energy, and innovation. 

Second, a little bit of background on our fiscal context and the 

preexisting condition we faced at the beginning of 2009. In January 

2009, before the Obama Administration took office, CBO issued an 

economic and budget outlook which clearly showed an increase in 

spending from 20.9 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2008 to 24.9 percent of GDP in 2009, a 4 percentage point increase in spending as 

a share of the economy, again before the Administration took office. 

The reality has turned out roughly consistent with that projection. Spending in 2009 was 24.7 percent. A different mix—mandatory spending was lower, discretionary spending somewhat higher—in part because of the Recovery Act, than what was initially 

projected. 

Similarly, with regard to our medium-term deficits, as of Janu- ary 2009 we faced an $8 trillion 10-year deficit, which can be attributed to two basic forces: One was the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts 

not being paid for, along with the Medicare prescription drug benefit not being paid for; and the second was the economic downturn. 

The first factor, deficit financing of the tax cuts and the drug 

benefit, raised the deficit by more than $5 trillion. The second factor, the economic downturn, by reducing revenue and increasing 

certain kids of spending, raised the deficit by more than $2 trillion. 

Now, that is all fine and well and provides the facts about where 

we found ourselves. The question is, what are we doing about it 

and how are we addressing both problems? I already mentioned 

that the President has put forward a jobs package intended to spur 

hiring in the near term. What about our medium-term deficits? 

The first thing we are doing and the first thing that should be 

done is to avoid making the problem worse. The Administration is 

pleased that the Senate has now joined the House in passing statutory pay-as-you-go legislation, which embodies the simple but important principle that, when you face a hole, you shouldn’t make 

it any deeper. If we had lived by this rule in the past, our out-year 

deficits would be roughly 2 percent of GDP, debt as a share of the 

economy would be declining, and our fiscal outlook would be significantly different. 

Second, economic recovery will help to reduce the deficit. We 

project that economic recovery will help to reduce the deficit from 

about 10 percent of GDP this year to roughly 5 percent of GDP by 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
5 

2015. That is higher than we would like, and so we have put forward specific policies to reduce it further: In particular, $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction embodied in this Administration budget, 

more deficit reduction than in any President’s budget submission 

in more than a decade, and sufficient to cut the deficit in half as 

a share of the economy by the end of the President’s first term. 

What are we talking about? A financial services fee which will raise $90 billion; allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation for 

those making more than $250,000 a year to expire, as scheduled, 

next year, which will reduce the deficit by almost $700 billion; 

eliminating fossil fuel subsidies to help move the Nation toward a 

clean energy future, reducing the deficit by $40 billion; and a 3- 

year freeze on non-security discretionary spending, reducing the 

deficit by $250 billion over the next decade, even while investing 

in key areas like education, R&D, and clean energy. 

Finally—and I see that my time is running out—even with those 

steps, the hole that we face is so deep that we will still not get to 

where we need to be, which is why we are calling for a bipartisan 

fiscal commission to work together and come up with additional 

measures that will help reduce our deficits further and put us on 

a stable fiscal trajectory not only over the next decade but thereafter. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it back to you, and I 

would welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orszag follows:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
6 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.007
7 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.008
8 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.009
9 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.010
10 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.011
11 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.012
12 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.013
13 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.014
14 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.015
15 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.016
16 

f 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.017
17 

Chairman RANGEL. What authority will this commission have 

legislatively? 

Mr. ORSZAG. There would be no direct authority legislatively, 

but, as you know, both Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have suggested that if the commission comes forward with a recommendation, Senator Reid has indicated that it will be brought to a vote 

on the floor of the Senate, and the Speaker has indicated that if 

it passed the Senate, she would bring it to the Rules Committee 

in the House. 

I would note there has been a lot of discussion about the difference between a statutory commission, which, unfortunately, despite having sufficient votes if all the cosponsors would have voted 

for it, had it passed the Senate, it not being enacted, there has 

been a lot of discussion about a statutory commission versus an Executive order commission. 

There is no doubt that a statutory commission, which the Administration favored, is somewhat stronger in terms of guaranteeing a 

vote on the commission’s recommendations. But I think the key 

issue is whether the commission issues those recommendations in 

the first place. Remember that under any of these commission designs, you would need a supermajority within the commission in 

order to issue a recommendation. It would have to be done on a bipartisan basis. I think if that happens, the strength of the voting 

guarantee thereafter is of somewhat less importance. 

Chairman RANGEL. Well, you certainly do put a lot of confidence in a commission rather than in the House or the Senate. 

But having said that, is this what you are tying a part of the deficit 

reduction to, this commission? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. What we have said is we get the deficit down 

in 2015 slightly under 4 percent of GDP through the $1.2 trillion 

in deficit reduction we have put forward. And we have noted that 

it would be desirable to move beyond that, and so we have assigned 

the task of additional deficit reduction to the fiscal commission. But 

we don’t show numbers that assume the result of that fiscal commission. 

Chairman RANGEL. Why do you feel that you have to go to the 

commission? Why can’t you go to the House and Senate leadership 

in order to get that type of commitment? 

This is especially so if the commission has no statutory authority. 

And you say getting a vote as though you know that you are going 

to get the results you want. I mean, getting a vote doesn’t sound 

like a profile in courage to me. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, and I guess that was my point, Mr. Chairman. I am agreeing with you that, ultimately, it requires legislative action to address this problem. 

In the past, there have been situations, for example, with the 

Greenspan Commission, where it proved to be useful to have outside experts and a commission formed in order to help the Congress—— 

Chairman RANGEL. These are inside legislators, aren’t they, for 

the most part? 

Mr. ORSZAG. There would be a mix, but, yes, there would be a 

heavy representation of inside legislators. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
18 

Chairman RANGEL. So whatever you are talking about doesn’t 

apply here. You have legislators that are recommending to their 

colleagues what they should be doing from a fiscal point of view. 

And, to me, even though I know that you and the Administration 

differ, as most people do who lead legislative bodies and go to the 

executive start thinking differently about what should and should 

not be done by commissions, but it just seems to me that we should 

not have to need that, unless you can give me some reason as to 

why, other than when you had outside experts. I thought we pay 

enough to staff here to have inside experts. You are an expert. The 

White House has experts. But I guess we are supposed to be intimidated when they come from outside rather than inside? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I would hope that the goal is not intimidation but, 

rather, assistance. But, again, I think—— 

Chairman RANGEL. Well, you say assistance, but, really, the 

only thing it sounds like you are getting is getting a vote. 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, I think what you are getting is—— 

Chairman RANGEL. What makes it so positive about getting a 

vote? I mean, some of us here, we get the vote, but we don’t know 

which way the vote is going to go. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I agree. And, again, so that is why I think the difference between a statutory commission and an Executive order 

commission has been somewhat overstated. 

Chairman RANGEL. I know the difference. I am only asking, 

why have it? Why do you think we need it? That is what I am asking. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think the reason we need it is we are struggling—and perhaps through, for example, the sort of informal 

meetings that you were suggesting there can be more bipartisan cooperation—we have been struggling to find the bipartisan cooperation that is necessary to fix big problems, including our fiscal problem. It is our hope that the commission provides an avenue for 

doing that. But if there are alternative avenues for doing that, let’s 

explore them. 

Chairman RANGEL. Okay. I want you to know that we here in 

this Committee, we like each other. We just don’t vote with each 

other. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. Good. 

Chairman RANGEL. So I don’t know how you are going to work 

that out. But I yield to Mr. Camp. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to say I agree with everything the Chairman said right 

now. And I have real concerns about the structure of this commission. And it is my understanding they have the authority to recommend tax increases, is that correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The Administration has put forward the tax policies we support, but we think it is important to allow the commission to do its work. 

Mr. CAMP. But they do not have the authority to recommend 

any decreases in discretionary spending. So—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. I don’t know that that is the case. 

Mr. CAMP [continuing]. Discretionary spending is off the table. 

Well, in the budget report, that is what it says. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Where does it say that? 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
19 

Mr. CAMP. Well, in that little box you have there. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Could we look at the box? 

Mr. CAMP. It is in the box. It looks kind of like a warning. I 

think somebody, I think Paul Ryan has described it as a cigarette 

label warning. 

Mr. ORSZAG. It is on page 146. If you could point me to the discretionary spending—— 

Mr. CAMP. In fine print, I think it says—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. Just because I do think this is factually important, 

if we could examine that box, I don’t think there is a reference to 

discretionary spending. 

Mr. CAMP. It is my understanding that discretionary spending 

will not be part of the commission. 

But what I really want to ask you about is this: I think that 

there has been a real concern about transparency, certainly, particularly on health care. But there has been one area that there 

has been some transparency I want to compliment the Administration on, and that is, in promoting a 2009 stimulus plan, the President’s economists forecast a very clear picture of what they expected in terms of job creation if the stimulus passed, and that is 

the January 2009 Roemer-Bernstein report. 

And instead of creating 3.5 million jobs as promised in this report, the stimulus is followed by the elimination of nearly 3 million 

more jobs. So, in that report, the Administration also predicted unemployment now would be well under 8 percent, and, of course, it 

is now 10 percent. 

Given that, I have a couple of questions. I know my time is very 

limited, but in a yes or no way, has the stimulus been a success, 

in your view? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The Recovery Act has avoided 1.5 million to 2 million people becoming unemployed who otherwise would be. Let me 

just clarify. 

Mr. CAMP. So you would say, yes, in your view, it has been a 

success? 

Mr. ORSZAG. It has been an important step toward avoiding a 

Great Depression and toward limiting the increase in unemployment. And that is not just our analysis, it is the analysis of the 

Congressional Budget Office and other outside experts. 

Mr. CAMP. And then why do you think we need another stimulus bill only 1 year after a trillion dollars has been added to our 

debt? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Because what normally happens—the Recovery 

Act has been successful in restoring economic activity, again, a 

shift from ¥5 percent to more than +5 percent. But what normally 

happens during a recovery is the employment market lags behind. 

What we are trying to do is more tightly link job growth to economic growth so that we don’t have unnecessarily high unemployment for an extended period of time. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, and doesn’t more of last year’s stimulus bill remain unspent than you are proposing to spend in the next stimulus 

bill? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am sorry? 

Mr. CAMP. Doesn’t more of last year’s stimulus bill remain 

unspent than you are proposing in this bill? Yes or no? 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
20 

Mr. ORSZAG. The Recovery Act is on schedule relative to where 

it was originally projected. Seventy percent we will spend out by 

the end of this fiscal year. And the question is, can we move beyond that to try to, again, accelerate hiring relative to GDP 

growth? And I think the answer to that is yes. 

Mr. CAMP. All right. And will the Administration issue a report 

similar to the Roemer-Bernstein report detailing the projected job 

creation and unemployment effects of the new stimulus bill, the 

2010 stimulus bill? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think once the details of the jobs creation package are finalized, one could do that kind of analysis. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. At the last hearing, a lot of Members 

waived their right to take advantage of the 1 minute that was left 

so that they would be able to lead in the questioning at this time, 

and that is Mr. Higgins of New York, Mr. Boustany of Louisiana, 

Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Heller of Nevada, Mr. Roskam of Illinois, 

and Mr. Nunes. So we will follow that. Then we will get back to 

regular order by me recognizing Mr. Higgins of New York for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Orszag, the Administration has proposed a $3.8 trillion budg- et, $2.4 trillion of which is for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, 

and interest on the debt. The Medicaid and Medicare piece of this 

is $788 billion, which I think is a pretty compelling argument for 

the need for health insurance reform. The other piece is Social Security, and the final piece is interest on the debt. 

Throughout this morning and throughout this year, there has 

been a lot of talk in Washington about deficits and debts and 

where we are today. A lot of the problems that we are experiencing, 

as you know, were caused by a previous Administration: Two tax 

cuts, representing $968 billion, unpaid for; two wars, representing 

$984 billion, unpaid for, including $12 million of cash that was distributed to put the Sunni insurgency on the American payroll in 

Iraq. Nobody knows where it is, nobody has any accountability. A 

drug prescription program that cost $680 billion, unpaid for. 

Under the previous Administration, the national debt more than 

doubled, from $5.6 trillion to almost $12 trillion. The vast majority 

of the current budget deficit is a consequence of the previous 8 

years. That on top of the fact that the previous Administration embarked on an effort to a reckless deregulation of the financial industries. In particular, the Securities and Exchange Commission 

changed what they referred to as the net capital rule, which allowed investment banks to increase their debt-to-asset ratio from 

6:1 to 33:1. A lot of these investment banks were overleveraged and 

created all kinds of exotic instruments to cover for their overleveraging. 

This isn’t my opinion. It is the opinion of the Wall Street Journal. It is the opinion of a conservative columnist, writer Bruce 

Bartlett, who wrote the book, ‘‘Imposter.’’ 

So I think when we embark on this debate, we have to be honest, 

based on factual information, as to what has contributed to this. 

And the reality is, both Democrats and Republicans have contribVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Apr 13, 2011 Jkt 063032 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\63032\63032.XXX APPS06 PsN: 63032

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
21 

uted to this problem. The question is, where do we move from 

here? 

And I think the one thing that everybody agrees with is that we 

need to do nation-building right here at home in America. Because, 

as the rest of the world rises, as we are preoccupied with wars in 

two foreign places, what is being compromised is our investment in 

infrastructure, our investment in human capital. 

The President has fulfilled his obligation to increase funding to the National Cancer Institute, which is very, very important, $6 

billion. But what will it do? It will allow the National Cancer Institute to start 30 new advanced trials of ‘‘smart drugs,’’ more than 

doubling the number of cancer drugs in clinical trials in the next 

5 years. 

Smart drugs are effective because they kill cancer cells without 

killing the healthy cells. They are highly effective. They are moving 

us from a culture where cancer was a death sentence 30 years ago. 

Now more than 65 percent of adults who are diagnosed with cancer 

live beyond 5 years of their diagnosis; 80 percent for kids. But in 

the previous 10 years, cancer funding languished. When you factor 

into account inflation, it was a loss of funding. 

This is why this is important. The only failure in cancer research 

is when you quit or you are forced to quit because of lack of funding. Cancer research is a continuum. It needs to be sustained. You 

can’t stop and start. 

Many of the drugs that are available today to effectively treat 

breast cancer, Herceptin, Gleevec, Avastin for lung cancer, have 

been in periods of discovery for 20 years. And their availability to 

the market and to people who are afflicted with these cancers has 

been delayed because of the lack of funding. 

Could you speak to the issue of cancer funding and this Administration’s commitment to the infrastructure spending that is also 

necessary to prepare this economy for global competition in the 

next part of this century? 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Higgins left you 20 seconds, so that 

whatever you want to say, say, and then I would hope you would 

send your written response. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Absolutely. 

Very briefly, the Administration is very committed to continuing 

down the path of aggressively pursuing cancer research. One of the 

developments this year is the NIH Director has now stepped forward with specific metrics and goals that he would like to be moving the effort toward, which I think is actually very beneficial. But 

we will continue the discussion. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. 

Chairman RANGEL. Dr. Boustany from Louisiana. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Orszag, welcome. 

I want to focus for a moment on American competitiveness. And, 

as you know, many of us on both sides of the aisle on this Committee believe that the Tax Code should promote competitiveness 

of American businesses doing business worldwide. This means exports, as the President has clearly expressed. 

Although the Administration has made some changes to its international tax proposals from last year, it still seeks to raise signifiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Apr 13, 2011 Jkt 063032 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\63032\63032.XXX APPS06 PsN: 63032

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
22 

cant taxes on these American companies doing business overseas, 

and nowhere does a corporate tax rate cut appear in the budget. 

We all know that we have the second-highest statutory rate, and 

I think we are among the highest in effective tax rates. 

So not only does our high U.S. rate discourage investment, but 

the disparities between our rate and the rates in other developed 

nations contributes to the kinds of transfer pricing issues that the 

Administration has expressed concerns with. 

So isn’t it the case that lowering corporate tax rates would relieve some of these transfer pricing issues, take some of this pressure off? And wouldn’t it also help promote location, make the 

United States more attractive for investment, and also increase 

jobs? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Congressman, as you know, there is a fundamental tension between the mobility of capital across national 

boundaries in a global marketplace and the national-based tax system that we have. And that manifests itself in issues like transfer 

pricing, along with a host of other questions. 

We are very focused on expanding exports, including through a new national export initiative that has more than $500 million in 

funding in this budget—— 

Mr. BOUSTANY. But speak to the corporate tax rate—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, again, the reason I—and research and development and a better educated workforce here and moving toward 

a clean energy future. Because, obviously, tax rates matter, but 

there are many other things that matter even more. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I understand, but my question is on the corporate tax rate. 

Mr. ORSZAG. And the tension in corporate tax rates is, as you 

know, there is a tension, because right now there is an incentive 

for a U.S. firm, relative to hiring someone here or undertaking activity here, to locate that activity abroad. That is what many of 

these proposals are trying to take care of. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Well, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, that doesn’t appear to be the case. Because it seems to 

show that, for every job that is created overseas by U.S. companies 

having affiliates there, we are creating an equal number of jobs 

here. The numbers are pretty clear, going back all the way to 1988. 

Mr. ORSZAG. But that doesn’t speak to shifting profits artificially into those affiliates, which is an incentive that you create 

through—— 

Mr. BOUSTANY. But the point is, if you lower the tax rate, then 

we will see more of that capital employed here. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, again, I guess there are different theories of 

the case. We think the way to expand exports while promoting employment here is to invest in a well-educated workforce, in research 

and development, being the world leader in new industries like 

clean energy. And then—— 

Mr. BOUSTANY. But that capital, the capital that these companies make overseas, a lot of that will be transferred back, because 

most of the R&D jobs end up back here in the United States. So 

lowering corporate tax rates should be good policy. 

Mr. ORSZAG. It also, as you know, is regressive and costs a lot 

of money. So we are trying to balance—— 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
23 

Mr. BOUSTANY. But it promotes growth. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, no, I am not sure it does. Again, the question 

is, look, we have had very rapid export growth over the last two 

quarters, and that is mostly because we are coming off of a low 

base and—— 

Mr. BOUSTANY. It is a low dollar. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. But still, the point is there are many things 

that drive export growth. One of the reasons why we are creating 

a new national export initiative and why we are investing in research and development and innovation and in a clean energy future and a well-educated workforce is, fundamentally, that is the 

key to our international competitiveness. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Well, I think if you lower the corporate tax rate 

and simplify things, clearly, that capital will be deployed back here 

in the United States, because, again, experience and economic data 

shows that most of those R&D jobs are here in the United States 

and we could develop more of that here. 

Also, there are benefits of having these companies able to allocate capital appropriately, because a lot of the profit does come 

back here in the long run when it comes to R&D, but also the benefit to the communities. I can tell you, any city that has a large 

company would love to be able to expand. Cities that don’t have 

these kinds of companies would love to have them, because they 

contribute to the tax base locally, they contribute to charitable 

events, and they also do educational things. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Congressman, as you know, there is a tension between what is called capital import neutrality and capital export 

neutrality—— 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I understand that. 

Mr. ORSZAG [continuing]. In the international Tax Code. These 

proposals are intended to address one of the problems, which is 

that, currently, the tax rate on domestic activity for that U.S. corporation can be creating an incentive for foreign activity relative to 

domestic activity. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. That is not what the information bears out, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Meek of Florida. 

Mr. MEEK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Orszag, thank you for being before the Committee. 

And I am going through the President’s budget right now. As you 

know, there has been a lot written about it. 

First of all, I just want to say that I appreciate the Administration extending the Making Work Pay tax credit. Some 7.1 million 

Floridians are going to be able to take advantage of that or continue to take advantage of it. I am pretty sure you know, in the 

State of Florida, that we are at 11.8 unemployment. And we know 

that the good, bad, and ugly comes from the Federal Government, 

as it relates to helping us increase employment opportunities in 

Florida. 

I can say that I have joined a bipartisan group of Members not 

only of the Florida delegation but those that care about NASA, and 

we are very concerned about the decision not to move forth or to 

try to rekindle the shuttle program or the lunar exploration plan. 

It has become a great concern to many of us. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
24 

We know that there has also been put forth a plan by the Administration that was announced last week to look at private-sector opportunities as it relates to rockets. And we don’t know what that 

means for human exploration in the future, but we do know that 

we are going to lose 7,000 jobs, and only 1,700 jobs are going to 

come from the privatization of the space program. 

I have to ask you this question because I think that it has so 

much to do with where we are as it relates to space exploration but 

also as it relates to jobs. And we are talking about scientists, we 

are talking about engineers, we are talking about a major brain 

drain from the State of Florida of the talent that we have now. 

And I want to know if there are any plans, especially as we look 

at the President’s budget, the Administration, to really take a forward leap in trying to replace those jobs or trying to see how we 

can keep that talent in the United States? Because if we are going 

to start sharing talent with other countries, we may very well lose 

everything we have gained over a period of years. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes, Congressman, and what is—the underlying 

goal of the NASA proposals is to allow the United States, actually 

returning to earlier questions, to leapfrog ahead in advanced technology. So there is longer-range R&D investments and a series of, 

as my colleague John Holdren puts it, ‘‘putting the science back 

into rocket science,’’ so that we can actually substantially advance 

the course of human spaceflight. This is a set of reforms that Sally 

Ride and Buzz Aldrin and Norm Augustine, who chaired the committee that reviewed NASA, have all embraced. 

With regard to employment effects, don’t forget that that is not 

the only thing that is happening in the NASA budget, which, by 

the way, despite the overall non-security freeze, is going up. The 

NASA budget is increasing $6 billion over 5 years. One of the 

things that that is funding is the refurbishment of the Space Center in Florida, which will have direct employment effects, along 

with the expanded and redirected research and development effort. 

Mr. MEEK. How many jobs that you would—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. I don’t have a direct estimate, but—— 

Mr. MEEK. But it is not going to take us close to 7,000. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am not sure. We can get back to you. 

Mr. MEEK. Because, of the 1,700 that are going to be created, 

we don’t know if those jobs are going to be created in Florida, 

where the most impact is going to take place. 

But continue, please. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I was just going to say I know that my colleagues 

at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, along with those at 

NASA, have looked at that in more detail, and I am sure we can 

get back to you with more information. 

Mr. MEEK. Yeah, well, you know, that is of great concern to us 

all, because it is not only an economic engine for the Space Coast 

but also for the entire State of Florida. 

I know the Administration has made a number of announcements, including the high-speed rail announcement out of the stimulus package, as it relates to the Sun Rail from Tampa to Orlando. 

We also know of smart grid investment, a number of investments 

that have been made. But this issue is so very, very important. We 

have a lot of subcontractors, a lot of small businesses that are atVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Apr 13, 2011 Jkt 063032 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\63032\63032.XXX APPS06 PsN: 63032

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
25 

tached to it. I just want to bring it to your attention, being a senior 

Member of the Administration. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter for the record a bipartisan 

letter that was written on November 23rd to President Obama 

about our concerns about the change in policy as relates to NASA. 

And also I would like to enter a letter from me, ‘‘Time to Usher 

Human Space Flight Into the 21st Century,’’ that could hopefully 

head us in the right direction as it relates to future investments. 

If I could have unanimous consent to enter that into the record, 

I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Heller of Nevada. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Dr. Orszag, thanks for being here today. 

I have to believe there are a couple of memos that are floating 

around the White House these days, especially after the President’s 

comments yesterday about wasting your money in Las Vegas. I am 

of the belief now that perhaps February is National Bashing of Nevada Month. I don’t know if that is accurate or not, but I would 

certainly like to see that memo, if it is available. 

But there also seems to be another memo, as I look at your testimony, and I read through your written testimony and also the previous testimony of Secretary Geithner and, of course, the President’s State of the Union, having read them several times. You 

know, there are words that are used that clearly you can use and 

words you can’t use. Words that you can use are things like ‘‘inherited,’’ and I am hearing that a lot today. ‘‘We inherited these problems.’’ We hear words like ‘‘failure of the previous Administration.’’ 

That gets discussed a lot. 

But words I think more important that I don’t hear, again, going 

through your testimony, Secretary Geithner’s, even the President’s 

State of the Union, are words like ‘‘capitalism.’’ Never used in your 

comments. Words like ‘‘free markets,’’ never used. I don’t see it 

with the President, I don’t see it with Geithner, I don’t see it from 

yourself. 

And if you are limiting the use of those vocabularies, I think it 

is a mistake. I do believe that, if we are going to get out of the economic problems we have here in this country, capitalism and free 

markets have to be the primary source, the primary way of getting 

out of these problems. 

But one thing that you do talk about is fiscal discipline. And I 

am confused, like most of the Members on this Committee, about 

fiscal discipline when it comes to this budget. For example, you 

have $3.8 trillion in Federal spending for 2011. That is an all-time 

record. A $1.6 trillion deficit, again, an all-time record. You have 

$2 trillion in tax hikes that will kill jobs, again, another record. 

And $14 trillion added to the debt inherited by our children and 

grandchildren, again, another record. And I don’t know where fiscal 

discipline fits in there. 

One of the things that you mentioned, and I appreciate it, both 

yourself and the President, Secretary Geithner, is about working 

together in a bipartisan manner, Republicans and Democrats. I 

can’t tell you how many letters I have sent to the White House tryVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Apr 13, 2011 Jkt 063032 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\63032\63032.XXX APPS06 PsN: 63032

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
26 

ing to solve problems. He says, ‘‘I want to hear good ideas. I don’t 

care if they are Republican or I don’t care if they are Democrat 

ideas, I want to hear good ideas.’’ I can’t get an answer. In 3 years, 

I have never received a response from the White House on any letters I have sent to them. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Two of those would not be us. 

Mr. HELLER. What is that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Two of those years then would not be us. 

Mr. HELLER. Well, okay. Okay, and that is acceptable. But I 

sent letters, I sent letters in response to the health care issues and 

never got a response; on energy, never got a response; on budget 

issues in the past, never received a response. 

And I am wondering if that is a pattern. If I am to expect to take 

you at your word that Republicans and Democrats have to come together, why can’t we get a response? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Congressman, I would welcome letters from you or 

others. I think I have a record of responding. I don’t know exactly 

what has happened to any letters you have sent, but if you send 

me a letter, you will get a response. 

Mr. HELLER. If you could send a message back and let them 

know. Congressman Ryan mentioned a letter that he had sent a 

year ago and again is asking for a response on this. I think it is 

important—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. I don’t think Congressman Ryan is suffering from 

any lack of attention from the President at this point. 

Mr. HELLER. But if we are going to work together, I think it 

is critical that we get answers to our questions. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. 

Mr. HELLER. If we take a look at the unemployment in my 

State—and, again, I don’t think the President’s comments help— 

we are at 13.1 percent unemployment in southern Nevada, 13 percent overall. I want to ask the same question that the Ranking 

Member asked, specifically about whether or not the stimulus has 

failed or not failed in the State of Nevada? I can’t explain this to 

my constituents as they continue to lose their jobs. We had an increase of almost one-half percent of job losses last month, over the 

month of December. 

How do I explain to them, not in the talk within the Washington 

Beltway, but how do we answer this question so that they understand whether or not this stimulus is working for them? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Again, I think if you look at the evidence, because 

of the Recovery Act there are 1.5 million to 2 million people today 

who would be unemployed without that Recovery Act. And, again, 

that is not just our numbers. This is the Congressional Budget Office; this is Goldman Sachs; this is Mark Zandi, who worked for 

Mr. McCain; other outsiders, all suggesting numbers in that range. 

Now, is that sufficient to avoid all job losses? No. We were losing 

700,000 jobs a month at the beginning of 2009. Now we are down 

to well under 100,000, and some private-sector forecasters are suggesting positive job growth by this spring. 

Mr. HELLER. But when you were promising 8 percent and it is 

now at 13, how do you go back and tell them it is working? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The problem was the situation was much worse at 

that time than anyone knew. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
27 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Roskam of Illinois. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I correct the record here? 

Because in the State of Nevada, when we did get the stimulus 

money for the infrastructure projects, the Republican Governor has 

refused to free up the money, and we are dead last, 50th in the 

United States for freeing up those dollars. The money is in the 

State of Nevada. It is the Republican Governor that isn’t giving out 

the money. 

Mr. HELLER. So what would our unemployment be with that 

stimulus money? What would our unemployment be? Answer that 

question. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Roskam of Illinois. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, back to this bipartisan moment. 

Director, I am from the State of Illinois and had a question for 

you. The budget—and this relates to Guantanamo, Illinois. The 

budget includes that—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. You mean Thompson? 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thompson, yes. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. I think you said Guantanamo, Illinois. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, that is what it would be, Guantanamo, Illinois. So the budget includes it. The Majority Leader was at the 

White House yesterday. He walked out, and you know how to read 

these tea leaves. He essentially said, ‘‘Not so fast.’’ So we are getting a mixed message from the Democratic leadership as it relates 

to Guantanamo, Illinois. 

What is the latest? 

Mr. ORSZAG. All I can say is the President remains committed 

to closing Guantanamo. I would note that the purchase of the 

Thompson facility would be justified regardless, because, as you 

know, the Bureau of Prisons lacks bed space—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I mean, so the 

original decision was made before the Christmas Day event, and 

then the subsequent decision to take—not release the Yemeni prisoners, obviously, back to Yemen. 

But, to your knowledge, there is no change? Is the Administration still spot-on on this? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am going to again defer to the Attorney General 

and others. What I will say again, though, is the purchase of the 

Thompson facility is justified regardless of what happens. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Right, but as it relates to the detainees—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. I will defer to—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. You don’t know. Okay. 

Could you just, sort of, walk through—you know, I have been listening. The President came into Baltimore, and we had a good exchange, House Republicans. He walked in, we gave him a standing 

ovation, good back and forth. And I think both sides, kind of, 

gained from it. 

The idea is, look, there is—and now I am interpreting—but you 

look at supermajorities, or up until Massachusetts, supermajorities 

in both chambers, an underperforming stimulus. And I know you 

have to stick with your talking points that it is great, but there is 

really nobody that believes that it is great. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, I—— 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
28 

Mr. ROSKAM. No, listen, you did your duty. You don’t have to 

do it anymore. There is nobody that really believes it is great. And 

it is this underperforming thing, and it was a trillion dollars, and 

the promise was going to be 8 percent, and now Illinois is over 11, 

he is at 13-plus. And it is not a good narrative. 

So if you rewind the tape and listen to President Obama, candidate Obama’s language, I just want to quote something for you, 

and this was one of his statements, and it was in one of those great 

settings, sort of, outside, white shirt, sleeves rolled up, roaring 

crowds. And he said, ‘‘Under my plan, no family making less than 

$250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase—not your income 

tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your 

taxes.’’ 

Now, that quickly fell by the wayside last year with a whole host 

of taxes that this Congress passed. Now we are being told, look, 

this next great thing is going to be coming over the hilltop, and, 

really, this time it is going to be great. 

What is it that animates the hope in my district that this plan 

that you are articulating, this budget, gets us out of this mess, 

when, with all due respect, the leadership got it so wrong just 12 

months ago? 

Mr. ORSZAG. You know, Congressman, there may be some 

things that I have to say because of my job, but the success of the 

Recovery Act is not actually one of them. I would be delighted to 

give you a list of credible outsiders. I think the conventional wisdom among economists is by far that, without the Recovery Act, we 

would have faced a much higher probability of entering a depression. 

If you just simply look at economic performance in the second, 

third, and fourth quarters of last year, I think it is unambiguous 

that the Recovery Act contributed importantly to moving from negative growth to positive. 

Now, is that enough? 

Mr. ROSKAM. Good. Listen, you checked the box, you did it 

again. Go ahead. But what is it, moving forward, what is it that 

really animates the hope? 

Mr. ORSZAG. But that is the key underlying precept, because 

you were rejecting that notion and therefore saying the next thing 

won’t work either. I am saying it did work; more is necessary. But 

I am just, frankly, not accepting the underlying precept behind 

your question. 

Mr. ROSKAM. So it is double down—listen, we spent a trillion 

and it was great; we are going to spend trillions more and it is 

going to be fabulous? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month— 

700,000. The economy was falling by 5 percent on an annualized 

basis. The decline in net worth was more than 30 percent. If anyone at that point told you the economy would be growing by 5.7 

percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, you probably would have expressed a lot more skepticism than you are expressing to me today. 

Mr. ROSKAM. My time is up. I will sign your hall pass that you 

did your duty. But I think folks in my district are very, very reluctant about moving forward and spending more. 

I yield back. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
29 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Nunes. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Orszag. Welcome to the Committee again. 

I am going through your numbers here, and I want to keep this 

very brief. I won’t make a statement and I hope that you won’t 

make a statement either so we can just get to the bottom line of 

some of these numbers that you are using to balance your budget— 

or, I shouldn’t say balance, but to try to reduce the deficit over 

time. 

First, I want to look at the LIFO provisions, the change in ac- counting you are doing there. You have $59 billion in revenue there 

that you are using. Can you answer me, how is that supposed to 

help small businesses in this country if you are going to eliminate 

that important provision? Because, obviously, if it raises $59 billion, that is going to come out of the pockets of small business. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Actually, it is not necessarily disproportionately 

small business. I am going to say again, we are doing a whole host 

of things for small businesses, and we could walk through that. I 

will avoid doing that right now and just say the LIFO provision 

was put forward as, frankly, just good tax policy. 

As you know, some firms use last-in, first-out; some use first-in, 

first-out. It is an anomaly that we think would be better addressed 

by eliminating—— 

Mr. NUNES. Isn’t it kind of gimmicky to use it? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. 

Mr. NUNES. That would be part of a broader tax proposal that 

the Chairman put out last year? 

Mr. ORSZAG. You may choose not to do it. I hope that is not the 

case. But it is not a gimmick, no. 

Mr. NUNES. Okay. Well, my next question is on insurance. On insurance, you are going to add about $14 billion in fees on the insurance, life insurance, dividends received. I mean, how does that 

help people that are trying to buy life insurance? It is another revenue raiser. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. Again, look, I am going to back up and say, 

because we could keep going down the list—— 

Mr. NUNES. I just have one more after this one. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. Well, there are tax expenditures and special 

tax breaks strewn throughout the Tax Code. We face massive outyear deficits. One of the things that we are trying to do is address 

those out-year deficits in part by tightening up the Tax Code when 

there are unwarranted tax breaks for certain slivers or special 

parts of either corporations—— 

Mr. NUNES. But, once again, that is basically $14 billion in 

taxes added to the $59 billion in the LIFO changes. So I want to 

talk about—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, if you are asking if we cut back on unwarranted tax breaks to corporations, the answer is, yes, we do. Over 

time and in out-years, yes. 

Mr. NUNES. I would also say I think it is a gimmick, because 

I don’t think either one of these would happen. There is one that 

I think possibly could happen, and that is you are raising $38 billion on American energy production. You are very familiar with 

these productions, the 199 provisions. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
30 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Mr. NUNES. Now, roughly half our trade deficit is buying foreign oil. Now, how is it that we are going to create American jobs 

and buy less foreign oil if we tax our domestic producers? 

Mr. ORSZAG. One of the absolutely essential things that we 

need to do is become a world leader in clean energy. That is the 

future, and we need to build out those—— 

Mr. NUNES. But this does the opposite, though. 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, it is a carrot and stick. We have more than 

$6 billion in investments to move toward that clean energy future. 

We have expanded loan guarantees for energy efficiency. We are 

investing in nuclear energy. We have a whole variety of investments in moving to a cleaner energy future. 

Mr. NUNES. You guys are promoting long-term smart grid, all 

sorts of wonderful things. But you can’t honestly tell me that if you 

get rid of these production credits, that we are not going to have 

to import more oil from foreign countries if we tax our domestic 

producers. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am inferring that you agree it is important to 

move to a clean energy future. And I think that, in addition to subsidies, or to the carrot, this will also help move us in that direction. 

I think you would probably agree with that. 

Mr. NUNES. You have a long-term approach for things not proven yet, in terms of the renewable energy portfolio we are trying to 

move to. But in the short term, you are using this to try to get toward a balanced budget, and it is going to result in more imported 

oil. I don’t see how you don’t—if you tax these domestic producers, 

how are we not going to import oil to replace that oil? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Again, the key thing we need to do is move to a 

cleaner energy future, and that is what these provisions, along 

with others, are intended to do. 

Mr. NUNES. So you don’t think, by eliminating these, that it will 

increase imports? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think the effects on imports—we could come back 

with a full analysis—are difficult to assess. It is not as simple as 

you are suggesting. But the more important thing is, it is always 

easy to say, ‘‘We will start later.’’ We need to start now to be moving toward cleaner energy. It is as simple as that, in my opinion. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. The Chair recognizes the Majority whip, 

Mr. Cantor of Virginia. 

Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Orszag, thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Good to see you. 

Mr. CANTOR. A few questions, Mr. Chairman. 

If you would, could you explain to us the sense behind the proposal to essentially require independent contractors to become employees and essentially having to withhold? 

I am told that, within your budget proposal, there is that notion, 

that actual item, which is now going to create that obligation on 

the part of an employer dealing with an independent contractor. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I believe this question was also posed to Mr. 

Geithner earlier today. And, again, the motivation is there is ambiguity currently. Small businesses, if I remember correctly, have to 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
31 

check 20 different criteria to evaluate whether someone is an independent contractor or a worker or an employee, and the intention 

is to clarify those rules. 

Mr. CANTOR. But is it not where you come down is to make it 

more difficult and more costly and provide a disincentive for employers to go ahead and hire, and, therefore, the end result could 

very well be less people—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, I don’t think it is a disincentive to hiring. 

There is a disincentive to hiring somebody as an independent contractor if that person should be an employee. And also simplification. 

Mr. CANTOR. So those are two different things. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I agree. You are doing both. 

Mr. CANTOR. Right. I think, again, my sense is this is going to 

be resulting in less people having the opportunity to be employed 

or to serve as an independent contractor. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, the latter might be correct, but I think the 

former is not. 

Mr. CANTOR. But, again, twofold. Simplification is one thing, 

but then to require hiring creates all kinds of additional costs. And 

right now, while we are in an environment where we so desperately need small businesses to start hiring and creating jobs, 

why would we now be putting more burdens, more costs on the job 

creators? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Again, I think one of the biggest problems—and I 

have run a small business; I know that dividing line can be very 

difficult to assess, and providing that clarity is important. 

And I would say, by the way, on small business, by far the most 

important thing we can do is increase demand for their products, 

which means getting the economy back on its feet and making sure 

they have access to credit. Because that is the key impediment to 

small business activity right now. And there is a whole host of 

things we are trying to do, and hopefully we could work together 

on that, to boost credit to small businesses. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Orszag, I so appreciate your saying that, because you and I have been in discussions where we continuously 

now propose to you ways we could work together in a no-cost way 

to the taxpayers, one of them being how do we change the incentive 

on the ground with auditors in the field so that they are not necessarily looking at performing loans and calling those performing 

loans and the kinds of things we Republicans had put forward in 

our jobs plan when we said that we could require auditors to just 

disclose how many loans, performing loans, have been called. 

Again, I think you agree with us that the pendulum has swung 

too far and rationality has left the equation. And, somehow, auditors are looking at risk all around as something bad, versus what 

we know in this economy, risk-based investment has created jobs 

and opportunity. 

Along those lines, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Director, how do you defend—set aside some of the things that you are 

talking about and the President is talking about right now in small 

business proposals. And we can talk about methods of tax policy 

and whatever. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
32 

But how do you defend, honestly, how do you defend, if you are 

talking about job creation, do you defend a cap-and-trade proposal? 

How do you really defend notions of saying we are going to let capital formation be secondary, so we are going to let the reduction in 

capital gains taxes, that reduction be repealed? How can you defend that, if we are talking about job creation being the primary 

focus? 

Chairman RANGEL. You have 35 seconds to answer that. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. 

Mr. Cantor, as you know, we have a new jobs and wages tax 

credit aimed at small businesses. We are proposing no capital gains 

taxes on investments in small businesses, the section 1202 provision being made permanent and 100 percent exclusion. We have an 

expansion in SBA programs, $17.5 billion in loans—— 

Mr. CANTOR. I am asking about the tax cuts that are about to 

expire and the uncertainty that that creates in decisionmaking on 

the part of small business. How do you defend that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. What I was trying to say is we have a whole series 

of tax cuts aimed specifically at small businesses. 

Mr. CANTOR. But the uncertainty provided by that, you are not 

worried about the impact? 

Mr. ORSZAG. We have been clear about what we think should 

happen. We don’t think there is uncertainty. 

Mr. CANTOR. You think that is good for job creation? 

Mr. ORSZAG. We have a whole series of tax provisions aimed 

specifically at small business. But I am going to come back again 

and say the key thing, the key challenge facing small businesses 

right now is inadequate demand for what they make and access to 

capital. And we need to be addressing both of those very aggressively. 

Chairman RANGEL. I would like to join with the gentleman 

from Virginia as we look into this independent contractor problem, 

because one of the major problems I think the Internal Revenue 

has is that many people who call themselves independent contractors are basically employees, and they are avoiding their obligations, employers. But it is a good issue. It is a complex issue that 

has been a problem ever since I have been in Congress. I would be 

glad to work with you to see whether we can simplify it or at least 

make it clearer as to who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, if I can just respond to that. I 

agree simplicity is something we should strive for, but we ought 

not put an impediment in the way of a true independent contractor 

to be able to assume that status because somehow the IRS or the 

Federal Government is seeking more tax revenues. That is the 

point. 

It is hard enough now for small businesses to keep the lights on, 

and to then add unnecessary or additional burdens because it is a 

policy we want to pursue right now, that is a policy that is counter 

to job creation. 

Chairman RANGEL. Well, Mr. Camp and I are going to try the 

best that we can to see what recommendations the Administration 

has made that we can work together on. And that certainly for me 

would be one, whether we raise any money or not. Thank you. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
33 

The Chair would like to recognize my friend from Michigan, Mr. 

Levin. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. 

You know, the discussion we had in the last few minutes about 

LIFO oil and gas with Mr. Cantor, independent contractors, even 

the energy bill, I think those issues need to be discussed. The independent contractor, the problem is you used the word truly independent contractor, and the issue is who is truly an independent 

contractor. That is a legitimate source of debate. 

But I must say I was dismayed by some of the back and forth 

that went on earlier. And when the Budget Director was told that 

he was simply checking the box, I suggest that we try to check our 

partisanship. I found that insulting. So let me just ask you, I mean, 

the problem we have is trying to find some common ground here. 

And as I go through your suggestions, Mr. Orszag, I think it 

shows that we have a lot of distance between us, the Majority and 

the Minority here, because you propose a financial crisis responsibility fee, and so far I think there has been strong opposition from 

the Minority to that, and we have to talk it through. 

The next proposal is the tax cut for people earning more than 

$250,000. And there seems to be a deep divide between the parties 

there. The limit on itemized deduction has been somewhat controversial within our ranks across party lines. We need to talk 

about that. 

So let me just ask you, as we have an honest debate about how 

we approach the budget issues, and by the way, we said earlier 

that if we have dug a deep hole, it is best not to keep digging. And 

I think that is true. But I think it is fair in evaluating the proposals how to get out of the hole that we can look at the record 

of those who have proposed approaches that have helped lead to 

the depth of the hole. 

So let me just ask you to contrast—I referred to some of your 

proposals. There was a discussion I guess in the Budget Committee 

yesterday. Comment if you would on what you think are the contrasts between the two approaches and how you think we might 

address them? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, Congressman, I think you have identified 

some of the differences. 

Financial services responsibility fee is a good example where our 

view is that the law requires that any residual cost to the taxpayer 

under TARP be paid in full. We put forward a fee that would do 

that, and not only do that, but impose the burden on our largest 

financial institutions, those with more than $50 billion in assets, 

and thereby also help to get at one of the contributors to the financial market problems, which was leverage. I mean, that is a small 

example. 

A big example, and I have a lot of respect for him, but Mr. Ryan 

has put forward an alternative path forward on the budget as a 

whole which represents a dramatically different approach to many 

of our major social insurance programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, dramatic difference there also. 

Mr. LEVIN. And what is in those proposals that you think are 

dramatically different? 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
34 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, in each program, there are dramatic differences. Perhaps the most dramatic is in Medicare where, instead 

of a defined benefit, a package in which you have a package of insurance, you are instead, for those 55 and below, given a voucher 

or basically a check. And you are then out on your own to go purchase insurance. The check or the voucher does not keep pace with 

health care cost growth over time. 

Mr. LEVIN. And Social Security. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Social Security, the plan would introduce individual accounts into Social Security. 

Mr. RYAN. Gentlemen, I am right over here. If you want to know 

what is in the plan, I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Mr. LEVIN. I am afraid we very much know what is in your 

plan. And I just thought it might be useful to have the Budget Director comment on it. Thank you. 

He wasn’t just checking the box either. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Lewis of Georgia. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Director, for being here. Thank you for your 

service. 

Mr. Director, last year when you came before our Committee to 

testify, we discussed the important health care reform and the 

need for everybody, for all of our citizens, to have health care. We 

discussed some moral imperative to the need to have coverage. 

And now we hear people saying, this costs too much, and in light 

of the budget deficit, people are saying, give up, wait, be patient, 

now is not the time. 

I want you to tell Members of this Committee, as we look at the 

budget, how health care reform is going to help us as we take a 

long hard look because the problem is not going to go away. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Congressman, there are tens of millions of Americans in this country who, under the legislation both you, the 

House, and the Senate have passed, would enjoy health insurance 

who currently don’t have health insurance. They are exposed to financial risk. They are exposed to health risk. 

There are tens and tens of millions of Americans, indeed hundreds of millions of Americans, who will have more security in 

their health insurance because they won’t need to worry about 

switching jobs, preexisting conditions, losing coverage when they 

switch jobs, under the proposals that both the House and Senate 

have embraced. 

And then, finally, both the House and Senate bills reduce the 

deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade and, just as 

importantly if not more importantly, put in place the key infrastructure that will allow you to restrain cost growth over time and 

improve quality over time. Unless we do that, unless we address 

the underlying drivers of health care cost growth, there is nothing 

else that is going to matter over the long term in terms of addressing our long-term fiscal gap, period. 

Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your response. 

Mr. Director, I want to move to another area. I know the President has—I mean, you have opposed a spending freeze on everything except defense and some other major programs like Medicare, 

Social Security. Is the Defense Department a sacred cow? What 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
35 

about some Members of Congress that are proposing that we spend 

$2.5 billion on 10 more C–17 planes that are not needed? Do you 

have an answer for that? I think the President is against it. You 

are against it. Senator McCain is against it. That is wasteful. Why 

is the Defense Department a sacred cow? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Congressman, it is not. And in fact you mentioned the C–17. Secretary Gates has been very clear that additional C–17 purchases are not necessary. 

So, again, last year we put forward a variety of reductions and 

terminations, canceling the F–22 fighter jet, for example, and the 

Presidential helicopter. This year, Secretary Gates is adamant, we 

don’t need additional C–17 cargo planes. We don’t need the alternative engine for the F–35, we don’t need the Navy CGX cruiser. 

There are a whole series of changes that he is trying to make in 

the procurement side of the defense budget that are not militarily 

necessary and that cost money, even while protecting our troops in 

the field. And that is what he is trying to accomplish. 

We are at war. We need to make sure we adequately fund our 

troops. But there are efficiencies that can be found in the procurement side of the budget for the Defense Department, and that is 

exactly what he is trying to accomplish. 

Mr. LEWIS. Do you think it is fair for any of us on this Committee or any other Committee or any other Member of Congress 

to look upon the Defense Department as a job creator, as a shopping bin or a shopping market for jobs? I mean, some planes are 

not needed. Some weapon systems are not needed. 

Mr. ORSZAG. The sole purpose of the Defense Department 

should be to protect the Nation as well as possible. 

Mr. LEWIS. Could there be savings if we just go and do the right 

thing? 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is exactly what we are talking about here. 

C–17, alternative engine for the F–35, the CGX cruiser, you can 

keep going down the list. We have a volume of terminations and 

reductions that include a whole series of changes in the Defense 

Department that the military has said are not necessary and that 

just impose costs on the taxpayers for no added national security 

benefit. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

Chairman RANGEL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Herger of California. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Director, at last year’s White House fiscal summit, you 

stated, ‘‘The single most important thing we can do to improve the 

long-term fiscal health of our Nation is slow the growth rate in 

health care costs.’’ 

That is why I am puzzled by your support for the Democrats’ 

health care bills, despite what you said in your testimony today, 

that the Democrats’ health bills would constrain costs over the long 

term. The Obama Administration’s own actuaries at CMS examined the Democrat health bills that passed the House and the Senate and found that national health care spending would actually 

increase if these bills became law, both in raw dollars and as a 

percentage of GDP. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
36 

Furthermore, both bills, the Medicare actuaries wrote, ‘‘show a 

negligible financial impact over the next 10 years for the other proposals intended to help control future health care cost growth.’’ 

Mr. Orszag, would you explain how, given these findings, you can 

argue that these bills will improve our Nation’s long-term fiscal 

health if, as you say, such health is dependent upon slowing the 

growth rate in health care costs? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Congressman, if you look at the Congressional 

Budget Office analysis of the health bills, and remember CBO is 

the primary agency that the Congress relies on to evaluate the impact of legislation on the Federal budget; very clearly the legislation both in the House and the Senate reduces the deficit, not only 

over the first decade but in the decades thereafter. For example, 

the Senate bill reduces it by hundreds of billions of dollars in the 

second decade. And that is largely without taking into account a 

whole variety of changes that are absolutely necessary in order to 

move toward a higher quality health care system of the future and 

that, frankly, would be necessary even under the approach that Mr. 

Ryan has put forward. 

If individuals—even if we moved toward a voucher system for 

Medicare, those individuals are going to need information on which 

treatments work better than whatever, other ones, which doctors 

are more effective and what have you. Without that, the system 

won’t work. We need to be making investments in health information technology, in information about what works and what doesn’t, 

into additional incentives for prevention and wellness, regardless of 

whether you want to move in Mr. Ryan’s direction or keep the current structure of the Medicare program largely intact even while 

moving to improving incentives for providers, which these bills do. 

The bills are trying to move toward a system in which we are 

no longer just paying for quantity, but instead, we are paying for 

quality over time. That is the key change, and they do it in a variety of ways. There are a whole variety, which we can go on about, 

projects designed to evaluate the best way of compensating doctors 

and hospitals for high-quality care rather than just more care, absolutely essential if we are going to address our long-term fiscal 

problem. 

Mr. HERGER. But again, as I understand the Congressional 

Budget Office, as you just referred to, indicated that they are not 

capable of scoring this, that only—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, no. 

Mr. HERGER. EMS can do that. 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is not quite right, sir. What CBO has said 

is, and when I was speaking at the fiscal summit, I was speaking 

about the impact on the Federal budget. CBO has been very clear 

that they do analyze impacts on the Federal budget. They provided 

analysis not only of the budget window, the first 10 years of the 

budgetary impact, but they have gone beyond what they have traditionally done and provided assessments of what would happen in 

the decade thereafter in terms of the Federal budget. What CBO 

has said it could not do, and frankly I think there are questions 

about the availability of other entities to do so also, is evaluate the 

impact on national health expenditures including private expenditures. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
37 

So the question about our fiscal future is obviously a Federal 

budget question that CBO does do analysis on, and the conclusion 

is very clear, the bills reduce the deficit over the first decade, they 

reduce it by increasing amounts thereafter and that that is what 

CBO has found. 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Becerra of California. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Dr. Orszag, good to see you again. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Good to see you. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you for coming. I would like to make reference to a couple of charts. I know you have seen these before 

from the Budget Committee hearing. One is on the deficits that we 

faced over the course of the last several years. If I could have chart 

one put on the screen. Once again, I think it is important that 

we always place in context the conversation we are having about 

budget, where we are, how difficult the situation is. I simply use 

this chart to point out how steep the climb will be for this country, 

for Americans, to be able to get back to work; for the Federal Government to once again be able to see green as we saw under the 

previous President in the 1990s, Bill Clinton, when we last saw a 

budget surplus; and just simply how difficult it will be. 

My first question to you, Dr. Orszag, you may have already 

heard me ask this, because you are very good with numbers I think 

you can do this calculation, you have a train traveling at 50 miles 

an hour—have you heard it, I hope you have—carrying about an 

average 100, 120 cars. All of a sudden, we realize the train has 

been driven recklessly for too many years. It is a free-fall in terms 

of where this train will end up, so we apply the brakes. How long 

does it take from the moment we apply the brakes to stop that 120- 

car-train traveling at 50 miles an hour? 

Mr. ORSZAG. It depends on the strength of the brakes. 

Mr. BECERRA. Yes. It is good brakes. 

Well, let me go to the next chart before I give you the answer. 

If I can get the second chart up. 

This is the train we were on. For the last decade, we were on 

a train, whereas you can see if you try to break up the reasons we 

have massive deficits, part of it, of course, is due to the economic 

downturn; part of it now as a result of the bailout of the financial 

services industry, you see under the red in TARP; some of it is the 

stimulus bill, the economic recovery package; a great portion of it 

is the Bush tax cuts; and a significant portion as well is due to the 

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And as you see them moving out into the further years, 2019, the 

biggest contributor to the deficits and of course our national debt 

will be the Bush tax cuts if we were to extend them out. The answer to the question, by the way, on that train, it takes a train 

traveling 50 miles an hour with 120 cars on it about a mile and 

a half to stop. And so this is our train and the President is trying 

to stop it from pitching further down. And it is going to take a 

while, many of us believe the President is on the right track, but 

it will be tough. Is there any belief anywhere in any economic circles that we can get out of this mess in a year or two? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
38 

Mr. BECERRA. Is there any reason to believe that any other 

President would have found himself or herself facing any rosier situation on the day that the keys were handed over from the previous President George Bush to the new President Barack Obama? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. 

Mr. BECERRA. Now, part of this problem, of course, is a result 

of the financial services debacle that we saw that nearly sunk the 

entire country, and now the President has proposed a responsibility 

fee on big banks to try to recoup the money that was lent to these 

big banks when they came on their hands and knees saying that 

they needed some relief. 

I don’t know if the news has come out yet, but I was told that 

today we would hear an announcement from AIG, one of the companies that took about $140 billion in taxpayer money so it 

wouldn’t go under, and AIG apparently is prepared to pay out 

about $100 million in bonuses to its executives as of today. I don’t 

know if Wall Street just doesn’t get it, but those are the things that 

make Americans truly sour on not just what we do in Washington, 

D.C., but certainly what is going on on Wall Street as well. 

Is the responsibility fee the Administration’s efforts to try to 

make sure that the taxpayers do get back money that we continue 

to see Wall Street spend in ways that no American taxpayer would 

expect the money to be spent? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. And again, there is built into the legislation 

a requirement that any—every penny that the taxpayers put into 

that program has to be repaid. And this responsibility fee is intended to fulfill that legislative requirement that the financial 

industry repay the American taxpayer in full for every penny involved. 

Mr. BECERRA. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Orszag, the budget that you propose involves a deficit of $1.6 

trillion this year after $1.4 trillion last year, something that I find 

deeply troubling. And I know, as was just explained, that this Administration did not dig us into this budgetary hole, but I think, 

as we explore ways to dig ourselves out, we have to scrutinize 

every spending proposal as if it were coming out of our own pocket, 

which in a very real sense it is. 

I want to continue our discussion of yesterday about a $133 billion expenditure that you are recommending, a tax expenditure 

that was announced last week, that you referred to as a job tax 

credit. I read over the weekend that the Assistant Secretary of the 

Treasury, Alan Krueger, admitted that the Treasury doesn’t know 

how many companies would claim the tax credit or how many jobs 

it will create, but said that even if it only got us one additional hire 

and we were subsidizing nine more that would have been created 

anyway, that that would be a success. I don’t know of many spending programs, direct spending programs, that we would consider a 

success at 10 percent accomplishment of what it was set to achieve. 

As you know, almost everyone involved with the last jobs tax credit 

says it didn’t work or it didn’t work well, that it subsidized jobs 

that would have been created anyway, that the system was gamed. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
39 

Mr. ORSZAG. You mean the one in the 1970s? 

Mr. DOGGETT. I mean the one in the Carter Administration. 

And I know you made some changes that you think are going to 

address those concerns. But even in those changed forms, most tax 

experts, most economists that have commented on it to date, have 

been critical as to whether that can be accomplished. If we have 

the Treasury itself saying that they don’t know whether it will be 

more than 10 percent effective, that doesn’t sound to me like a very 

effective way to dig out of the hole. 

Now, you told me yesterday, and I will just turn to your testimony, that altogether it is not necessarily a negative because, as 

you said, additional cash will be injected into small businesses and 

alleviate the liquidity crunch, which is very much what Assistant 

Secretary Krueger had to say. 

The problem I have with that, like some of the other programs, 

tax programs that the Administration has supported, is that they 

don’t alleviate the liquidity crisis for everyone. I have some businesses down in central Texas that began conservative in their hiring approach, and then they did everything possible to cut costs so 

that they didn’t have to lay off an employee who had been loyal to 

them. 

This will advantage a new business that comes into town, a franchise that wants to compete with them, by hiring new employees 

and getting subsidized 5,000 employees up to $500,000, and they 

won’t get any liquidity out of this proposal if they are not adding 

new employees. 

I think that is one of the reasons that a number of commentators, including those based at the Center for American Progress, 

have said that this kind of jobs tax proposal distorts the marketplace because it favors some over others. 

That is the kind of concern that I have about your proposal. I 

want to create jobs, but I want to do it in an efficient, effective 

way, and not in a way that encourages people to game the system 

and reward people like those that would be rewarded under your 

proposal who made hires before this bill even became effective or 

before it was even announced. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Mr. Doggett, I look forward to working with you 

on this. Let me just make a few comments. 

First, with regard to the Carter era tax credit, there are some 

analyses, for example one by John Bishop that I remember, suggesting that it actually was quite effective. The analyses that suggest otherwise generally find that, to the extent it wasn’t effective, 

that it wasn’t effective because it was way too complicated. People 

were confused by it. They just didn’t get it. This design is very simple and straightforward and I think will address that complexity 

issue. 

Second, it is not just for new jobs. It is also for wage increases 

or for moving people up in terms of the hours worked. And so for 

those businesses that don’t want to hire someone new but they 

have some employees who deserve a wage increase or who they 

could have work more hours, they can also benefit from this. So if 

it were just limited to new hires perhaps the concerns would be 

somewhat deeper. It is not. 

But again, I would look forward to working with you. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
40 

Mr. DOGGETT. I look forward to working with you on it also. 

I think the smaller the better if you are just determined to have 

this kind of credit. I just don’t see most of these businesses being 

motivated by tax decisions. They are motivated by whether they 

have new customers with money coming in the door. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I happen to agree with Mr. Doggett. He is right on target. I think 

you guys are way off base on that. 

There is another subject I think you are off base on, too, and that 

is cutting the military services. Have you ever been in combat? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think if you will look at the JCS, most of them 

never have either. Those who haven’t been fired at or fired a shot 

at an enemy don’t understand what it takes to maintain superiority. We collapsed in Korea and lost it, we collapsed in Vietnam 

and lost it. We haven’t won in the Middle East either. And a weak 

military isn’t going to get there. 

And the things you talk about that you say we don’t need, you 

are full of it, I hate to tell you that. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Mr. Johnson, I just want to clarify, that was not 

me. That is Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and the military. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I just mentioned them. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You know, the health care reform thing that Mr. 

Herger talks about, it seems to me that the Republican alternative 

does fit better into your previously stated goals for health care reform than the President’s own plan. 

And we have a copy of the CBO score, if you want to see it, of 

the Republican plan. I am sure you looked at it. You might want 

to reconsider that. 

One thing I have heard again and again from my constituents 

back in Texas is they are sick and tired of the secret backroom 

deals when it comes to negotiating health care reform. Since we 

haven’t been invited to any of these meetings, I don’t believe any 

of my colleagues on this side of the dais were, were you part of the 

backroom deals where the White House officials and Chairman 

Baucus promised special treatment for the pharmaceutical industry 

if they agreed to cough up $80 billion? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Congressman, I was not directly involved in those 

discussions. But let me say what the President I think said today 

or earlier last week, which is that he recognizes and supports 

increased transparency as we move throughout the rest of this 

process. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So you weren’t there either when they were talking about the so-called Cadillac tax that non-union workers would 

have to pay? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think you—sorry, you asked me about the pharmaceutical. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Those are different things, as you know. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Different subject. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I was involved in some of the discussions over the 

excise tax, yes. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
41 

Mr. JOHNSON. You were. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you approve of that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. That is a controversial topic. The motivation behind it is I think well known, but I know that many people have 

significant concerns about moving in that direction. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think we have to be careful where we 

tax. 

Were you also there concerning Senator Nelson’s special Medicaid deal? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Given the defeat of the commission legislation in the Senate last 

week, what assurance do you have that Congress will ever even act 

on the Presidential commission recommendations? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, Mr. Johnson, as I said earlier, I think the 

key issue is, and I am hoping that your side of the aisle will join 

together to work on the commission, the key issue is whether the 

commission issues a recommendation. If it does, both Senator Reid 

and Speaker Pelosi have provided assurances that a vote will be 

taken. 

As I said earlier, and I know there are issues to be worked 

through with regard to the commission, but the key question is 

whether we can join together to actually get to the recommendation 

stage. And I think there has been a lot of attention on what happens thereafter, but that seems to me somewhat less important. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you ought to talk to Mr. Rangel a little bit. 

Thank you, sir. I have no further questions. 

Chairman RANGEL. Have you followed this Committee’s reaction to the MedPAC recommendations as relates to Medicare? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am sorry. 

Chairman RANGEL. Have you followed this Committee’s reactions to recommendations that have been made by MedPAC as relates to Medicare? 

Mr. ORSZAG. In general, yes. 

Chairman RANGEL. And aren’t you pleased with our performance? 

Mr. ORSZAG. In general, you have, I think, especially in the 

health reform legislation, adopted many of the recommendations 

that MedPAC has put forward. 

Chairman RANGEL. All right. I just wanted to make certain. 

Let’s see now. Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Actually, Mr. Orszag, I think appearing repeatedly before this 

panel qualifies for some sort of combat designation. 

I do appreciate your clarifying that this recommendation on the 

weapons that my good friend from Texas was talking about actually came from the Department of Defense, and it references a 

weapon in particular that if we are losing in the Middle East, this 

weapon would have virtually no impact in dealing with the problems that we face with insurgency, with terrorism, with improvised 

explosive devices. So I think it is an example of the tough decisions 

that this Congress doesn’t want to make, and that has been a problem with Administrations in the past. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
42 

These are tough questions. We can’t do everything at once. And 

I think you are attempting to give the Department of Defense what 

it needs and not often have Congress force it to take things that 

have more political—political—impact than they do military impact. 

I am, however, interested in exploring some of the other areas 

of tradeoff. You have heard some of our colleagues here raise some 

concerns about some of the tax provisions, that we are going to continue extending tax benefits, yet we have a serious deficiency with 

America’s infrastructure. You talk about the financial experts, the 

independent economists, almost all of whom will say that investing 

in the long-term renewal and rebuilding of America is going to create more jobs than short-term tax cuts that my friends on the other 

side of the aisle don’t actually think made much difference, the 40 

percent of the last package, and instead, we are at an impasse on 

the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, which could, 

for the amount of money that you are talking about moving in this 

direction, basically fully fund a program. 

I don’t want to put you on the spot now because I would like 

something in a written form about what the tradeoff might be to 

invest in an area that actually has bipartisan support across the 

country that the Administration has talked about, but we are not 

putting enough in to make a difference. 

I would like to conclude with one area. I see my friend Paul Ryan 

is back. He wasn’t here in the last panel when I was able to commend him for putting forth some specific suggestions to actually 

bring down the long-term number. Now, I think Paul would welcome a debate on the specifics, which we should have, but I guess 

I am wondering if there isn’t some way in the spirit that Paul has 

tossed out some things, some of us, I mean, we have worked together on agricultural subsidy reform, which is in this budget, and 

I hope you will go to bat for it and back some of us up who care 

about it. 

But you know, we know you can take any six of us and put us 

in a room, and we will describe what the path will look like, for 

instance, to fix Social Security. Now, some will have a little more 

on revenue, and some will have a little more on adjusting longterm inflationary rates. Others will suggest that there might be 

some difference in terms of the aid, but there are three or four 

variables that actually will happen in the next 10 years. And I 

wonder if there is any opportunity that we might be able, in the 

spirit that Paul has offered up a few things, that there might be 

a way for some people to not wait for a commission but to actually 

roll up their sleeves and have a little bit of this conversation, because we know that is where we are going to go in the next 10 

years, and maybe we can do it in a way that is a little less toxic 

than it has been to date? 

Mr. ORSZAG. And Mr. Blumenauer, that is exactly what we are 

trying to create through the commission. But if there are alternative mechanisms that would complement or supplement, I know 

the Chairman, for example, had mentioned informal meetings on a 

bipartisan basis to address some of these issues. The problem is so 

substantial and the need for bipartisan cooperation so significant 

that my view is, whatever works, let’s do it. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
43 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, I would just conclude by expressing 

my hope that we can take a few of these things, we can find maybe 

an informal way to debate and refine and flesh them out, but I 

hope in a couple of these areas that we can look at the broader context so that we don’t have to wait for a commission, because it is 

going to take the full 10 years to turn this battleship around, as 

you have documented in a previous life. Thank you very much. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Pomeroy is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow along my colleague, Mr. Blumenauer. I believe 

that my colleague, Paul Ryan, has advanced a detailed plan with 

specifics to match the Republican counterpart to the Administration’s plan which is detailed and has specifics. And so we at last 

face the prospect of actually being able to make choices between alternatives that are real and on the table before us, not basically 

fighting fact with fiction or just totally empty rhetoric as an alternative that really doesn’t allow for an honest debate. 

Now, having not been a Member of the Budget Committee, I am 

sure it was covered exhaustively there, but if you can give us, Mr. 

Director, maybe a little flavor for the Administration’s take on the 

Ryan budget proposal and the alternatives that this Administration 

believes would be a better policy course. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Well, Mr. Pomeroy, I discussed this a little bit briefly before, but 

I think there are a whole series of changes that Mr. Ryan would 

propose; tax changes that would eliminate the estate tax. It would 

eliminate the corporate income tax. It would dramatically change 

the tax structure. Mr. Ryan may have a different perspective, but 

in my analysis, and we will get more rigorous analysis of it, it 

would significantly shift the tax burden from upper-income taxpayers toward middle-income taxpayers. 

But most of the long-term deficit impact comes from a substantial change in Medicare. So the plan succeeds in reducing our longterm deficit, but at the cost of exposing beneficiaries to much more 

uncertainty about how much health care is going to cost them and 

at the cost of shifting additional costs onto beneficiaries. 

So it is not hard to reduce Federal expenditures just by shifting 

uncertainty and cost onto beneficiaries, and I actually think Mr. 

Ryan would agree, there are—that, in a sense, and CBO said that 

that is exactly what it does, there are costs and benefits to doing 

that. 

Mr. POMEROY. Now, in the alternative, I think there has been 

a fair description. 

Mr. RYAN. Would you yield? 

Mr. POMEROY. I yield to you briefly, but I do have another 

point I want to draw. 

Mr. RYAN. No one disagrees that the current spending trajectory 

cannot go on as it is. So Dr. Orszag will agree, and he has said this 

many times, the path of spending we are on right now cannot go 

where it is. It has to come down. The question is, how do you do 

it? 

Mr. POMEROY. Precisely correct. And I do commend you for 

putting forward specifics as an alternative. All right. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
44 

Mr. Orszag, or Dr. Orszag, what would be specifics you would advance as your alternative to essentially the outline you have just 

given us? 

Mr. ORSZAG. We support a more progressive tax system rather 

than a more regressive one. We support, for example, finding efficiencies in Medicare on the provider side, reducing unwarranted 

subsidies to providers and altering their incentives, so that they 

provide higher quality care rather than just more care, instead of 

loading the burden onto beneficiaries disproportionately. 

In Social Security, we don’t support introducing individual accounts into Social Security. We support individual accounts on top 

of Social Security, which is why, in this budget, we have a whole 

series of reforms intended to promote automatic IRAs and automatic 401(k)s in addition to shoring up the defined benefit system, 

which I know is very close to your heart. And you can go down the 

list. There is a significantly different path chosen in which more 

risk is loaded onto individuals under Mr. Ryan’s plan, and the Tax 

Code is much, much more regressive. 

Mr. POMEROY. I think that that is, for my purposes, the opening bell of what will be a very interesting debate. And again, it is 

going to be an interesting debate because we actually have specific 

alternatives to talk about. 

I commend Mr. Ryan. 

I have a couple of seconds left. I just came from a press conference on the goal of restoring pay-as-you-go as a budget discipline 

into the Code. Do you have a comment on that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I applaud the Senate in embracing statutory payas-you-go legislation. It embodies, as I said earlier, the very simple 

principle that when you have a big hole, don’t dig it any deeper. 

We are finally at a point, I know the House has been pursuing this 

for years and years and years, we are finally on the verge of actually embedding it back into legislation in a way that I think will 

be very constructive. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. 

The witness has to leave in 20 minutes. We have about 16 Members. We are also expecting a vote on the floor. How much time 

have you got? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am told I need to be back at the White House 

at 4:00. 

Chairman RANGEL. Okay. So we will proceed under the 1 

minute rule with the understanding that you will get responses 

from the Director, and then we see what happens. 

So Mr. Pascrell is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We need to develop new models in this country, Mr. Orszag, and 

I am very happy to see that the President has embraced this challenge and has decided to find revenue. We cannot do the same; we 

can’t use the same models as we have been using. 

The budget contains a measure that we passed in the House, the 

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which converts all new 

Federal student lending to the Direct Loan program. And according 

to the CBO, this will save taxpayers $87 billion over 10 years by 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
45 

switching to the cheaper Direct Loan program. And boy, you know 

what the struggle was there. You know who was on which side on 

that debate and why they were there. 

The budget eliminates funding for inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, 

eliminates 12 tax breaks for oil, gas, coal companies—we will see 

who is on which side to defend those subsidies—and will raise 

nearly $39 billion over the next 10 years. These are the kind of 

commonsense measures we have been talking about for years. 

What other innovative approaches to raising revenue are found 

in this budget? What kind of groundbreaking action can Congress 

take to close the deficit gap while still being able to grow our economy? And as part B to that question, Mr. Orszag, what are we 

doing in terms of the health care delivery? I am interested to hear 

what kinds of things the Administration is doing in this budget 

without whatever we call reform, and what things do you have in 

the pipeline to do with existing resources and authorities to begin 

to bend that cost curve, because most of us haven’t seen it so far? 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Brady is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the record, I will—for brevity, I will ask the Director for a 

written response on how many American jobs will be created by the 

tax increases on small businesses, local real estate partnerships, 

U.S. companies competing overseas, U.S. energy companies, capital 

gains, research and development, charitable giving and the death 

tax, and I will just ask for any economic numbers you have. 

Second, a hypothetical. The train is hurtling down the track. 

Democrats have been at the helm of the train for 3 years. Deficit 

speed is now 10 times faster than when Republicans were at the 

head of that train. Instead of slowing down, they propose to accelerate the deficit speed for another year and keep the pedal to the 

metal for another decade. Now, how long will it take before the 

Democrats realize they are actually driving the train? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am not sure I like this minute rule thing. 

Mr. BRADY. Okay. I just wanted to check on that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. I don’t know how to follow that. 

As a Member of Congress, here is how I get my health care. I 

get a fixed payment from my employer, Federal Government, the 

American taxpayer. I get a book from the Office of Personnel Management saying, here is the certified plans to choose from. I pick 

one. 

That is exactly precisely what we are proposing for people under 

the age of 55 in Medicare but with more support for low-income 

and sicker people, and not as much for higher-income people. 

Does this program have to change to be saved? Of course, it does. 

But since I have a minute, I won’t belabor all of this. 

A reputable economist told the Wall Street Journal that the ‘‘unusual situation the government finds itself in with other countries 

willing to finance the U.S. debt at low rates won’t last.’’ When it 

flips, the question is, how do you get ahead of that to avoid the 

downward spiral of rising interest rates, a plunging dollar and a 

sinking economy? I couldn’t—— 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
46 

Mr. ORSZAG. Can I chime in, a charming and intelligent economist—— 

Mr. RYAN. He was a reputable economist, and yes, an intelligent 

economist. I couldn’t have said it better myself. 

I have to think that if you wrote this budget with your own 

druthers, it wouldn’t be the budget we have here today. You know 

this budget is unsustainable. Some of us put an actual plan out 

there, and the Administration is putting out a commission. This 

commission, you know, whatever you want to call it, this is not a 

real budget. It is not a sustainable budget. 

And I just wish, because the spending and deficit and debt trajectory matters so much to the bond markets, to the future of our 

country, I just wish the Administration would stop the spending 

spree and get this stuff under control, because it is not about politics. It is about prosperity, and it is being threatened. 

With that, I yield. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Neal is recognized. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, Mr. Orszag. Two points. One, I am delighted that the 

automatic IRA has been included in the President’s budget, my 

proposal. And I hope and believe that that is something that we 

ought to be able to get done here on both sides. There ought to be 

enthusiasm for creating it, so I am happy that it is in. 

But I do want to raise some skepticism about going to a Medicare 

commission. We proved here that you can address some of these 

issues. We did it three times with President Bush, Sr., and President Clinton twice. 

And the idea that we would farm out the responsibility for what 

is such an important part of our constitutional obligation raises 

doubts in my mind about what the outcome might be. 

And I say that obviously because of the interest I have in teaching hospitals, the interest I have in what are now extraordinary 

employers across the Northeast. And it is also first-class health 

care. And the health care that takes place there doesn’t occur in 

many other places across the globe. So I just wanted to raise that 

point with you. 

If you want to try to defend the position in a minute or so, at 

the Chairman’s behest, that would be fine with me. But I am 

pleased about re-insurance, and I am pleased about automatic IRA, 

and I am skeptical of a Medicare commission. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Tiberi is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. I would like to talk to you more about 

this another time, but I think the budget is full of contradictions. 

One of them I would like you to answer a question on. The front 

page of my paper today, I think you would agree with this, Recession Takes a Toll on Donations in the U.S., charitable contributions 

specifically. 

I am the Cochair of the philanthropic caucus, and I have heard 

from many over the last year, particularly after the last budget 

proposal, which was not adopted by Mr. Rangel and the Majority 

because of opposition within their conference, and the Administration or several Members of the Administration last year backed off 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
47 

the proposal, and I was hopeful it wouldn’t reappear, but yet it is 

back. Can you comment on it? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Again, I am not clear whether I should be responding now or not. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. If you could respond in writing. I know Mr. 

Levin had a similar concern regarding the itemized deduction proposal. 

Chairman RANGEL. Ms. Brown-Waite is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

In the proposed budget there is a Medicare cut of $720 million 

I believe, but there are no details. Could you provide the Committee with information as to exactly how this will be achieved? It 

calls for $722 million in cuts. So where are the cuts going to be? 

That would certainly be—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure. It may be in program integrity, but we will 

get back to you in writing. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Thompson is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Orszag, I have a couple of things. I am concerned that the 

one area where we can really make an impact on creating jobs is 

the Corps of Engineers. With a $61 billion backlog, you are proposing we cut them another 10 percent. 

Second, I would like to know what we are going to do on the sustained growth rate, which is going to prohibit patients from seeing 

their doctor, patients under Medicare. 

And it was mentioned earlier about LIFO. I think it would be a 

tragedy to get rid of LIFO. This would put our foreign competitors 

at an advantage to our U.S. businesses. This hits small businesses 

here at home. That is going to cost us in jobs. It is going to cost 

us in revenues. It is going to cost us in everything, including important market share when we are competing against these foreign 

markets. And to do LIFO is just a rocket shot at American small 

businesses, when at the same time the foreign competitors will see 

a huge, huge boost. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Davis of Kentucky is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One point I would like to make with the hollow comments about 

wanting more partisanship and every time that we point out an objection, that we are accused of partisanship. 

I represent a district that is Democratic. We are more than willing to work issues like Mr. Thompson talked about, but I think it 

is time that the Administration end the war on the Ohio Valley 

States and specifically on West Virginia and the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky. 

There is a contradiction in your budget. You say you want to create jobs. You say you have a carrot-and-stick energy process or initiative. I am an engineer. It doesn’t work, first of all, from a technological standpoint. From a practical perspective, what do I tell 

the Caterpillar D–8 operator in Hazard, Kentucky, who is being 

legislated out of a job; 404 permits are behind the Corps. 

And at the heart of our energy industry right now, I can tell you 

this, the things that have acceptance in every sector of business, 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
48 

you are legislating away the expensing for research and development, for depletion. Capital gains are being taken away as a benefit for royalties, and finally, it is a repeal with the domestic manufacturing deduction on something that generates over 50 percent of 

the energy to power this country. 

What you are doing is lighting a fuse to economic disaster, and 

you are putting the very people you want to help out of work. 

I would like your answer in writing to that conversation, please. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Davis from Illinois is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The debate goes on and on about the Recovery Act, its success 

or failures. What would the job creation outlook be and unemployment be, in your estimate, if we didn’t have it? 

Mr. ORSZAG. The very short answer is there would be 2 million 

more unemployed people today, roughly 2 million, without the Recovery Act. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Reichert is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Orszag, you know, there have been some questions about 

jobs created versus jobs saved. Well, I am interested in jobs that 

we have lost through inaction. 

So when the Treasury Secretary was here just a couple of hours 

ago, Chairman Rangel agreed with me that the United States is 

losing jobs by the failure of enacting pending trade agreements 

with Korea, Colombia and Panama. 

Do you agree with Chairman Rangel and myself that we are losing jobs by not enacting these trade agreements? And you can answer that a yes or no. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I would say that we need to engage with the rest 

of the world. We are looking to—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Are we losing jobs, sir, by not enacting these? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Exports are a key part of economic growth and—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Is that a yes, sir? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Get those trade agreements done but in a way 

that—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes or no? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I don’t want to play that game. 

Mr. REICHERT. No, I am not playing a game. It is a question. 

Mr. ORSZAG. With improvements to those trade agreements, 

they would be desirable both from—— 

Mr. REICHERT. So that is a yes. Thank you. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Etheridge is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Orszag, budgets are a blueprint of our priorities. And let me 

just say, I don’t want you to comment on this, but you have already 

heard it today, folks at home are really upset about what they read 

in the morning paper about AIG. We put a lot of money in it, and 

I don’t think they get the message yet, and I hope we will continue 

to take—to press on that, and you have heard that here. 

But let me ask you in writing to share with us, I served as a 

State superintendent of schools for my State before I came here. I 

happen to believe that education is the one thing that levels the 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
49 

playing field for all folks and really builds a strong foundation for 

the future. And unfortunately, it doesn’t show up in our balance 

sheet right away. And I hope you will share with us as a Committee a list of those things in this budget that affect elementary 

education, higher education, and those who are out of work who 

are coming back through the community college system for longterm opportunities and education. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman RANGEL. Copy the Chairman on that request. 

Dr. Boustany is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. Heller. 

He is not here. 

Mr. Kind is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Orszag, thank you for your patience in being here today. But 

the Republican idea of privatizing Social Security and privatizing 

Medicare, which is a part of their so-called plan, really isn’t a plan 

at all. It is just an ideology. It is an ideology that has been rejected 

in the past. 

So if you want to have a real debate on it, let’s get those terms 

out so that the American people really know what is at stake. But 

it all comes back to rising health care costs if we are ever to get 

this budget under control. And I appreciate the leadership you and 

the Administration have shown. 

But the key in my eyes is, we have to reform the way health care 

is delivered in this country and especially how we pay for health 

care, getting off of this fee-for-service, which is volume-based payments, to one that rewards the quality or the value of care that is 

given. And I look forward to working with you as we move forward 

on health care reform, because the election in Massachusetts does 

not solve the health care crisis that we have in this Nation. 

And if we are going to have balanced budgets again, a payment 

reform is going to have to be a part of the solution. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Director, thank you for your patience. 

I am going to take you up on your kind offer to meet with us in 

a bipartisan way. And you can get more votes privately than you 

ever can get publicly, so maybe we can work out something. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sounds great. Thank you. 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you again. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submission for the Record follows:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB
50 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.001
51 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.002
52 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.003
53 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.004
54 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.005
55 

Æ 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with $$_JOB63032a.006