On CNBC’s Squawk Box on the House Addressing the New Federal Budget

Transcript: 

congressional committees, marking up the 2009 budget. joining me with his view on keeping america great, house majority leader steny hoyer. good toe see you, congressman. >> good to be with you, i feel right at home following this discussion where there seems to be great unity that the people want in congress, we didn't hear it from you guys. >> it's almost like the house of lords here. or even what you see in korea. >> korea. >> i felt right at home. >> you probably feel pretty civil at this point. anyway, we don't want you to feel civil. we want you to attack the other side at this point. what do you make of what you see? >> it's not a question of attacking, but it is a question of rejecting a budget which was sent to us by the president, which suggested deep cuts in health care for seniors, deep cuts for health care for veterans. deep cuts in law enforcement in our country. and hold fast on education as opposed to investing in education to grow our economy. that was rejected yesterday by the house budget committee. it's going to be rejected by the senate budget committee. we're going to offer a budget which will bring balance to the budget within five years, which we need do. we run deep deficits over the last seven years of this administration. it invests in education and compete act. it invests in our energy resources so we can get energy independence, gas per barrel as you know. up over $1.05. and -- excuse me $105. and we are investing in the future. we think that's what the american people want to do. at the same time, we are pursuing a fiscally responsible policy that will balance the budget. so i think that we're once again going to be able to pass a budget, whether the president will agree with that budget, he doesn't sign buchbts, as you know, that's a plan, but whether or not he'll sign appropriations bills which rae flekt the numbers in those budget, investing in the health care of our people, safety of our neighborhoods is yet to be seen. >> earlier this morning, congressman putnam came on saying your budget has $683 billion in new tax. is he wrong about that? >> i don't know what he's raefring to. yes, she wrong. it doesn't have $683 billion in new taxes. >> how much does it have in new taxes? >> i don't know off the top of my head what he's talking about. we do not deal with taxes that are going to expire. we make room for middle class tax cuts which we think need to stay in place. we think the working families are being stretched. edwoent think the wealthiest americans are being stretched f we are going do pay our bills an not impoverish the next generation and put the country in the condition this president has put the, then we need to be responsible and pay for what we buy. >> but the richest 1.3 million americans are already paying as much tax as the combined the 66 million americans who earn bay low median income level and richest 1% of americans are paying close to 30% of federal tax income. >> one of the things you don't observe is that average working americans under this administration have been stuck in the mud nerms of earning power. they're about where they were when this administration started. in fact, have decreased about $1,000. >> that's a bad thing, but i'm not sure the answer so to tact rich and give the money to the people. let's build business and let them get better paying jobs. your balanced budget in favor years, how much of that relies on a forecast of strong economic growth and how much relies instead on new taxes or higher taxes coming in? >> it doesn't rely on new taxes nor does it rely on particularly optimistic growth levels. we adopt the growth levels that the president has adopted so we can compare the two budgets. we also adopt what we know is not the case but we do it so you can compare the two budgets side by side and see what they do. the president provides $70 billion for iraq. a, for this coming year, that's going to be at least $200 billion. the president's budget is not realistic. and very frankly ours is not either. we know that's going to be more. we don't know what the figure is. the administration won't estimate it and administration has not counted on it. frankly the $70 billion may carry the administration until they leave office and leave on their successor's desk the obligation to pure sue that it also doesn't pay for the amt, the alternative minimum tax as you know was never meant to hit the people it is hitting. ...