farther out there when it comes to demanding the tax increases and limiting any changes to entitlements or any cuts in spending. megyn: they don t want any, stu and the argument on their part is you don t go after people on medicaid, after seniors who depend on social security and medicare, make some defense cuts if you have to but we d rather just see the rich get taxed and the near rich get taxed if we have to do that. the numbers do not add up, the left is being fundamentally dishonest. they are saying you don t have to cut social security or medicare or medicaid to get the deficit down, all you ve got to do is tax the rich some more. they are recklessly suggesting that we go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt heading towards bankruptcy. the numbers, megyn are stunning. we have an unfunded liability for medicare of $42 trillion. an unfunded liability for social security of $20 trillion.
reduction plan. that is significant piece of it. the president s proposal calls for total of $1.6 trillion in revenue over ten years. greta: one of games in washington, we talk about over ten years, we get a new congress and new presidents? that is true. you have to do your projections based on the best information you have right now. that is what the president s plan calls for. he has $4 trillion, $1.6 trillion in revenue which by the way is less revenue than proposed in the bipartisan simpson-boles recommendations to get to their number. it combines with cuts to try and get there. i think everybody who has looked at this agrees if you are serious about a long term deficit down, you have to take this balanced approach. if you don t ask for anymore in the way of revenue it does mean you are going to cut dramatically in other areas, more than just cut below.
reduction plan. that is significant piece of it. the president s proposal calls for total of $1.6 trillion in revenue over ten years. greta: one of games in washington, we talk about over ten years, we get a new congress and new presidents? that is true. you have to do your projections based on the best information you have right now. that is what the president s plan calls for. he has $4 trillion, $1.6 trillion in revenue which by the way is less revenue than proposed in the bipartisan simpson-boles recommendations to get to their number. it combines with cuts to try and get there. i think everybody who has looked at this agrees if you are serious about a long term deficit down, you have to take this balanced approach. if you don t ask for anymore in the way of revenue it does mean you are going to cut dramatically in other areas, more than just cut below.
getting rid of tax shelters. that phrase, tax shelters. he s running with the king of tax shelters. we have never had a presidential candidate who has exploited american tax shelters the way mitt romney has. and it s one thing to talk about deductions which we all use, mortgage deductions, health care deductions. all sorts of deductions that you see on regular tax returns. most of us have never seen, never touched, never used and don t know how to explain a tax shelter. mitt romney is in that rare world where his wealth is built on tax sheltering. and the question is is paul ryan going to go after tax shelters tonight in his speech? i ll be surprised if he does. i think the difference between him and the deficit hawks and there s some real deficit hawks in both parties who really do care about getting the deficit down, getting the debt down for all kinds of good reasons. he s not one of them. he gets all the credibility for
only way you re going to get the deficit down, you have to touch the big items and touch items like medicare, social security, taxes and defense. right. but a lot of people say that, senator, but the president, you know, he knows it s an election year and that s the third rail of politics. you know, it s very interesting because last summer, the speaker of the house, john boehner, republican and barack obama made an agreement in principle and offered $3 to $4 trillion in deficit reduction. he took it back to his caucus, there were 43 tea party newly elected members who vetoed that and so just, you know, it tells you how quickly things can change. and that s what happened. as a result, we are where we are. and the country is based on real it s uncompromised. i mean, i saw dick lugar last night many he lost. it s a real loss for the country. and you blame the tea party for that? i mean, his opponent said the time for collegiality is over. the time for confrontation has