As a result, our baseline shows inflation adjusted gdp fromding more quickly 2017. We expect the increases to spur businesses to hire more workers, pushing down the Unemployment Rate and raising the rate of participation in the labor force during some disgorged workers jobs. Eturn to look for that will keep the employment rate from falling as much as it would otherwise. We project the Unemployment Rate will decline gradually over the next few years. It will drop below six percent in 2017. The Labor Force Participation rate is also projected to decline further in the next few years. According to our analysis, the increase in participation will be more than offset by downward pressure from demographic trends, especially aging of the baby boom generation. The Participation Rate is protected to declined more rapidly. Seven reason beyond 2017, Economic Growth will diminish. The pace is well below the average seen over the last several decades. I am happy to take your questions. Thank you very much. Last week, the report described lingering effects from the great your report contains some significant downward revisions to your expectations about the strength of the economy over the next decade. That added debt is not from new spending or new tax cuts. The cbo expects the economy to be weaker than previously thought. In the state of the union, president obama we have to reform a spending programs. You believe given the large that physicalt responsibility also requires we take measures that ensure we have a Strong Economy . Yes. Any actually congress can take to boost Economic Growth can have a powerful effect on the future budget outlook. There are no plausible changes in Economic Growth they can make the longterm budget pressure go away. We looked a range of alternatives. The funnel problem will remain that the magnitude of the problem comes the extent of the changes needed and tax policy or spending policy or both would be smaller if the economy would grow more rapidly. There was wide confusion about the section dealing with the Affordable Care act on the workforce. The Washington Post fact checker check some of the claims. Contextd them out of and deliberately misleading. As chairman ryan noted, your boat report doesnt say it is causing workers to be laid off. Foraca is make it possible people to be and of native. It casey will remain locked into a job. Can you clarify this part of your outlook. This caused 2. 5 maybe would lose their jobs . No. We would not characterize our result is saying that 2. 5 Million People will lose their jobs. Read all of the coverage that sprouted last week pains toe took emphasize the points we made in the appendix of the outlook last week, that the affect we are projecting comes not from people losing their jobs are for people choosing to work not at all or shorter hours. Start a business . A range of other activities. Can you talk about how accessibility and affordability of Health Insurance helps workers . The subsidized Health Insurance coverage that will be provided under the aca through expansion of medicaid and through the initiation of tax credits divided for insurance purchased on the exchanges, that makes the people who receive raisings better off by coverage at reduced cost. Some of them will respond to being better off by not working or working less. This is intrinsic to some extent, those benefits are withdrawn under the Affordable Care act. Implicit taxan that reduces the incentive to work to some extent. Insuranceed, health existed prior to the aca, it distorted labor market behavior. Health insurance is not related to work. Thats been a Research Shows people who had jobs and had Health Problems or concerned about the risk of Health Problems would be unwilling to leave those jobs to take other jobs. That is the phenomenon known as job lock. Under the Affordable Care act that would not be there. People would be able to take insurance to the exchanges or receive subsidies. Thank you very much. Senator sessions . Take you. I think i understand your comments about the Affordable Care act and hours lost and reduced. I would note that from my perspective that what you have indicated is the act has a tendency to incentivize people not to work. What we need is incentives to work. We have to create systems that help people work. If they can work longer, we should be looking to do that. Senator, with an analysis, the onesg programs are that are driving the larger percentage of the taxpayers revenues each year. They are leading us to accelerate our debt. I would have to say that we are not going to fix that and address it effectively of the president of the United States will not look the American People in the eye and tell them we have a problem that needs to be fixed. I wish it were different. He has not done that. We are not going to be able to achieve progress unless he does. Just looking at your interest estimate of interest is stunning. You recall what the interest was last year . Last year there were 221 billion in net interest. The 10 year and, 10 years from now, we would be paying 823 billion. This year you project 10 years from today we will be paying 880 billion in one year. That is over 500 billion more than we are now paying each year. Where does this money come from . That is the question i think the American People need to ask. It is going to come out of programs at people from both parties believe in and want to see grow. Theyre not going to be able to grow because we have this huge increase in interest. Is right. That a coupleed of years ago if Interest Rates increased one percent, that cost add a a 1 trillion to the budget. You are saying that if Interest Rates increase one percent, it would add 1. 5 trillion to the cost of the budget. If they were one percentage point higher over the next decade, that would add about 1. 5 trillion to the federal deficit. Nobody knows for sure what Interest Rates will be four or six years from now. You make the best estimates that you can do. Your could treat critique was crying quite correct. We missed the extent to which the recovery would be slow. We built in a slow recovery by the post u. S. War. It was not slow enough. This kind of crisis takes a long time to recover from. They were more right than we were. Briefly, since we cannot continue to borrow more to spend more and stimulate the economy, tax code forimpler Corporate Tax rates, with that help growth . Yes. The tax reform that broadens the base and brought down rates on the corporate or individual sides would be positive for Economic Growth to how much difference it would make would depend of the rate . Eliminateould regulations, with that allow more growth to occur . It might. The effect would if we produce more American Energy and imported less would that help . Yes, i think it would. We are in the process of working on the analysis now on frackings affect on the economy. Reduce social programs and focus more on and and sent advising and training people to work and move out into the employment field, with that improve the gdp growth . It would. The effects would depend on the specific changes. If we had a leaner and more productive government, if we got more for it, would that be good for growth . Getting more Effective Government Services or more benefits would be good for people by receiving more benefits for services. It depends on the timing of the changes and the nature of the changes. Our deficits under control, with that create more confidence and more growth in the future . It would be good for the economy in the long term. Thank you very much, madam chair. Think for people watching this today, they scratch their heads because you look at things so me different ways. I want to back up and start with some good news. We ought to be celebrating today. In 2009 we had a 1. 4 trillion deficit and this year it will be 500 billion. That is a pretty big drop. We should actually view that as good news. It is good news. It may not be good lyrically for google who want to use the issue come up but it is good news. Million private sector jobs and we need more. That is a good thing. You stand by your statement that in the cbos judgment, there is no compelling evidence that parttime employment has increased as a result of the a formal care act . Yes. Job growth and what we need is more of it. One of the things concerning to me as policymakers is that you have indicated in Discretionary Spending for opportunity in rebuilding america, infrastructure, innovation, in the next 10 years we will see the lowest investment in those things that affect people an opportunity. Since 1940 . All of federal spending and interest on the debt. That collection of programs together, spending will be smaller than at any point since 1940. Builds their countries to invest in clean energy and so on. We are going in the opposite. I want to underscore when you talk about Economic Growth, we care about longterm deficits and we want to stay on a path of fiscal responsibility. Growing would do a lot creating jobs to mitigate that. I want to go back one more time. I feel like were speaking two languages on the committee as it relates to the Affordable Care act. I want to ask you as it relates to the ability for people to have freedoms to make decisions without being chained to the desk or their job. Did the february report on the budget find the Affordable Care act wiill end 2. 5 million job . About 2. 5 million peopple would reduce their work effort by the coven of about 2. 5 million positions. 2. 5 million jobs that we would lose . We did not say that 2. 5 Million People would lose their jobs. We have not quantified. I want to be careful. We think when people talk about people outside of economic and budget people losing their jobs, they mean people who were laid off from jobs they want to keep. What we described is people who are choosing to work less or not to work because of the extra benefits they will receive under the Affordable Care act. A reduction in the supply of labor that is driving the change in the amount of the change is in the coven of 2. 5 million positions. So we are giving people more choices. They can choose whether to be in the workplace or not or to do other things or to spend time with their family. We are given the choice to some in my family who wants to stay home with their 18monthold and has not been able to do that because her familys Health Care Comes from her job as opposed to her husband. They are going to have a different kind of freedom that is just as productive, to raise a little boy. We are not judging i appreciate that. I am evaluating and judging. I am adding the evaluation, which is moms or dads able to be home with little ones having tremendous value for their family and for all of us. I am so proud we will be able to give moms and dads that choice. Our individuals that will be able to retire from some very hard work a little bit early. Developed a Small Business they have been hoping for a long time. I think the freedom involved in folks being able to make choices is a wonderful thing about moving forward and not having health care have to be tied to employment. I want to look at the Macro Economic impact rather than the specific number of jobs or what is related to what people can do. I would like to ask about the labor market. The Labor Force Participation rate is at the lowest point since 1975. Last month it ticked up just a hair. It would reduce the number of fulltime equivalent workers by about 2 million by 2017. A result of some people choosing to not work at all or others choosing to work less. It is a disincentive for some people to work resulting in a decrease of labor supply. To grow the economy and increase economic opportunities, we need more workers and we should encourage people to work. What effect will this have on the economy . The reduction in the supply of labor would result in the Affordable Care act polls down gdp, investment, pulls down tax revenues. It is not in our economic interest to shrink the size of the workforce . It is not in the interest of gdp. Gdp is for more people. If we have lower gdp, we will have more people in this country and more people are going to have less. You have to expand the economic pie. It seems basic to have more for more people. Would it be fair to say it is discouraging people to work is harmful for our Economic Growth . It is harmful to Economic Growth. There are pros and cons. Federal revenues are expected to reach 3 trillion this year, your which is below a 40 year you and you are average. Revenues are inspected to grow at the same pace as the economy, 18. 1 of gdp. In a 18. 1 of gdp. Federal spending for 2014 would be 24 and five percent 20. 5 you and a of gdp. You it will equal 22. 5 of gdp and it will equal 22. 5 of gdp and you and you by 2024. And in him and him and what is him the Economic Impact of spending that outpaces revenue . Does this demonstrate we have a and spending problem that is fiscally unsustainable . A we think the budget is on an unsustainable path. An when spending outpaces revenues, that extra deficit in you and you and you will lead to an accumulation of federal and debt. That crowds out some private capital investment. He him and him and him and him and him the rising debt reduces