Responding to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) on Monday, CNN's
chief business correspondent slammed GOP "weird math" and "balanced
budget nonsense" on the sequestration and accused Jindal of being
"misleading."
"And it's this weird math that the Republicans are using, that it's just three percent of the federal budget," Velshi ranted. "Except you can't touch entitlements. So it's three percent of a small part of the federal budget, which makes it a very big part of some major agencies," he insisted.
[Video below the break. Audio here [1].]
Jindal had argued for more carefully-planned cuts, not for the current three percent cuts:
"I think it is possible to cut less than three percent of the federal budget without causing these devastating consequences. To go to the earlier question, I think you can achieve these reductions without, for example, jeopardizing children's access to vaccinations. I think you can achieve these kinds of reductions...I think it's time for the President to show leadership. I think it's time for him to send to Congress a prioritized list of reductions that preserves critical services."
Even Isabel Sawhill of the left-of-center Brookings Institution told
CNN last week, concerning cuts to National Parks, "I think almost any
organization can sustain a five percent cut in their budget and not have
it interfere with their basic mission." Velshi argued that cuts would
be nine percent for non-defense agencies and 13 percent for the Defense
Department.
Velshi also attacked the GOP push for a balanced budget. "Throughout
history, governments have always racked up debt," he argued.
A transcript of the segments, which aired on CNN Newsroom on February 25 at 1:11 p.m. EST, is as follows:
Gov. BOBBY JINDAL (R-La.): I want to respectfully disagree with my some
of my colleagues' statements. I do want to echo what Scott has said,
I'll make a couple of points. I think it is possible to cut less than
three percent of the federal budget without causing these devastating
consequences. To go to the earlier question, I think you can achieve
these reductions without, for example, jeopardizing children's access to
vaccinations. I think you can achieve these kinds of reductions. Let's
be clear, the spending – the federal budget will actually be larger even
after these reductions than it was last year.
So I think there is a responsible way to cut less than three percent of
the federal budget. I think it's time for the President to show
leadership. I think it's time for him to send to Congress a prioritized
list of reductions that preserves critical services. Every governor here
has had to balance their budgets during tough economic times. Every
family out there has to balance their budget, isn't allowed to spend
more than they need. Every business has had to become more efficient,
tighten their belt. The reality is it can be done. This administration
has an insatiable appetite for new revenues. Over $600 billion in new
spending under this president. Almost $6 trillion of new debt. Over $600
billion of new taxes just in the most recent deal. Enough's enough.
Now is the time to cut spending. It can be done without jeopardizing
the economy. It can be done without jeopardizing critical services. The
President needs to stop campaigning, stop trying to scare the American
people, stop trying to scare states. Every American knows out there –
you just ask the American people, do they believe there's at least three
percent of the federal government spending that is wasteful spending
and they would tell you there is room to cut the waste without
jeopardizing critical services.
So I happen to disagree. I made a suggestion, the President didn't
agree with it, I say if these cuts really are that devastating, would he
at least consider delaying some of the new spending instead of cutting
existing programs? For example, the Medicaid expansions? And he
disagreed with that. He did not want to do that, he did not agree. If
these cuts are so devastating, why are we spending new dollars to create
new programs? So I respectfully – look, he basically – and I don't want
to put words in the President's mouth. My sense was that he felt that
the election has consequences and he felt that the majority – he was not
open to having that conversation again. But again, I'll let the White
House speak for themselves.
Bottom line is, you'll hear a diversity of views from the different
governors. My perspective is you can cut less than three percent of the
federal budget without devastating consequences that – the President
needs to show leadership. Now is the time for him to work to avert some
of these consequences –
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal speaking there at the
mike at the White House. I want to bring him back Ali, because Ali, I
know that you've got some things you're taking issue with here. But is
he correct when he says that? That it's not going to hurt the way we
think it is?
ALI VELSHI: No. And it's this weird math that the Republicans are
using, that it's just three percent of the federal budget. That'd be
fine if you were cutting three percent across the board. That sounds
very reasonable. Except you can't touch entitlements. So it's three
percent of a small part of the federal budget, which makes it a very big
part of some major agencies. So it's just misleading stuff that Bobby
Jindal is saying, number one.
Number two when he says families understand they have to live within
their budget. I don't know a lot of families who buy a house with cash.
Buying a house on a mortgage, is that living within your budget or is
that not living within your budget? Because you'd have to be 80 years
old to be able to buy a house with cash. We have an understanding in our
society, it may be flawed, that we borrow money based on our future
earnings potential. All people do that, companies do that, and
governments do that.
Now there's a point at which you can say, we've gone too far with that
or we're too much of a risk of not paying back so we'll end up paying a
higher interest rate. When you borrow too much money, your personal
interest rate goes up, your credit cards go up. That is not – but to
suggest this within your means and balanced budget nonsense is just
misleading. That is not how families live. It's not how businesses
conduct themselves. And it is certainly not since the history of time
the way governments run themselves. Bobby Jindal is a smart guy. He runs
a state. He needs to not talk like this and it's become very common to
hear this kind of stuff coming out in these press conferences.
MALVEAUX: Ali, where is the compromise, though? Is there a compromised
proposal here that is reasonable for both sides that they could actually
be satisfied with?
VELSHI: Well they both want something that's in this thing. The
Democrats really want these massive defense cuts that there's no other
way they'll ever get achieved politically. And the Republicans want what
a lot of these cuts to these things they call waste. But the truth is
the only way you balance the budget in this country, the only way you
get to a debt that doesn't keep growing is to attack the entitlements.
Social Security, Medicare, those kinds of things and nobody wants to
touch that. The compromise is Simpson/Bowles or some version thereof,
which does include higher taxes and includes more strategic cuts than
these ham-fisted ones that we're seeing right now. That's the issue. The
compromise, neither party wants to sit at the table and actually sign
off on.
(...)
[3:41]
VELSHI: What did he just say? Governor Bobby Jindal is wrong.
Throughout history, governments have always racked up debt. Families –
do you call it a balance of a budget when you take out a mortgage to
borrow a house that you can't afford to buy because unless you buy your
house on cash, which not a lot of people do, you're going to have to
take out a mortgage or wait until you're 80 years old in order to buy
that house. And he's wrong when he says that cutting three percent of
the federal budget won't hurt. Because cuts that were spread evenly
across the entire budget may not, but that's not what we're doing. We're
not touching entitlements, we're only touching discretionary spending,
so that's nine percent cuts to non-defense agencies and 13 percent to
defense. They're disproportionate. The reason is that these funding
reductions would only come from those parts of the budget that they can
legally cut. That's everything from the FBI to the FDA to support for
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Big Bird if you will.
Entitlements like Medicare and Social Security would be largely
protected, and that's where any dent in the debt would have to be made.
So let's be careful about the things that you hear from politicians in
the next few days telling you what is and what isn't. I'll keep telling
you what is and what isn't here.