Live Q&As

Excellent question.  I worked for the President who did the "read my lips" routine and we all know what happened.  But the Speaker ruled out tax "hikes."  He didn't say anything, however, about tax "reform," and that's where I think one could cut a deal here.  He wants to reduce the structural deficit with real spending cuts and to promote economic growth.  President Obama wants job creation.  One thing that could be on the table is major structural reform of our tax code, which both reduces growth and reduces job creation.

First, our investments in DARPA help create the internet that all of us enjoy today.  That has been a big win for the country and the world.  Federal spending goes to universities in several ways -- grants, contracts, Pell grants and other forms student financial assistance.  Most of this spending can be found in the federal budget, but I do not know the details about tracking all federal dollars to individual universities.  Having said that, unless the federal spending relates to classified security work, I see no reason why the universities should not be willing to disclose all of this funding.

The audience was sober, polite, and respectful.  I do not recall that he got any applause for specific proposals, but during the question and answer period, the audience did enjoy (and laughed) during his exchange with billionaire Pete Peterson about Mr. Peterson paying for his own Medicare costs.  Mr. Peterson appeared to enjoy the exchange very much as well.

The issue of jobs came up I believe within the context of economonic growth, and the Speaker, as he has at other events,  stressed his own "humble" orgins.  So he did give the impression of being on the side of working men and women in wanting to promote job creation through several strategies that would boost growth.  He clearly wants to see the country turning around the current unemployment numbers.

Absolutely.  I think that members of both parties should take a real hard look at the federal spending and sort out those programs that have been around for a long time and which may not be working.  The problem is that we keep adding and layering programs on top of programs in a way that most businesses would never pursue. 

Take a look at GE, for example, which has transformed itself during the last decade under Jeff Immelt so that it is a fundamentally operation than it was under Jack Welch.  Efforts like this rarely happen in government and they should.  Former Vice President Al Gore once tried to something like this and the effort needs to be revived. 

First of all, our tax code is extremely inefficient in doing the one thing that it's supposed to do well: namely, raise revenue.  It is overly complex, overly long, and inpentrible to the average citizen.  In 1986, we had significant tax reform, which eliminated a lot of the loopholes and complexity, lowered the rates and broadened the based.  That's what I have in mind when I talk about structural reform of the tax code.  I think one can do this while also maintaining revenue for the federal government, but this type of simplification will, in my view, promote growth and jobs.  Yes, some may be paying more, others might be paying less, but the tax cod that we have now is not serving the interests of anyone in this country expect those special interests who lobby and make politcal contributes to get their special deal.  Most Americans can't do that and I think most object to the way the system works now. 

Thanks for raising this question.  I have worked in government and know exactly what you're talking about.  What you say is a perfect example of how government can benefit by having more insentives applied to its activities.  As you point out, the existing incentive is to spend all the money that's been appropriated because at the end of the fiscal year the agency will be audited and managers are rewarded for getting the money out the door on time, so that it doesn't lapse.  There are no incentives to help ensure that the money is spent well, has the intended consequence or, in some instances, isn't spent at all when it is not needed, might be wasteful, or not produce the expected consequences.  The Congress should consider your point as should the GAO.  We spend billions of dollars on government programs and we don't often step back and ask if those programs are really working to benefit the people whom they are intended to benefit. 

I hope that military spending will be treated like every other dollar should be treated in the federal budget.  In other words, the money should be spent on activities that we need and that are priorities for our nation's defense and national security.  We have already seen examples where the defense department has been under pressure to continue spending on weapons and equipment that it doesn't want and doesn't need.  In some instances the pressure comes from members of Congress who want the spending the continue in their district or lobbyists whose clients benefit from the spending.  I would hope that both Democrats and Republicans would work together to make sure that our defense budget reflects what we truly need rather than rent-seeking that results from some lobbyist or other pressure. 

I have no idea.  You might want to ask the Office of Personnel Management on that.

Politics inherently involves the art of compromise.  Most political leaders always look to shore up their base.  I'm sure Speaker Boehner is no different than any other major political leader.  The Republican caucus in the House has added new members from the Tea Party, and I still think it's too soon to know exactly where that group is going to go.  My sense is that other leaders such as Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan want this Speaker to succeed, and also want to make substantive progress in attacking the structural deficit. 

Democrats, by the way, face similar challenges as President Obama attracts criticism from both the left and right wings of his own party.

Welcome to Washington.