Hoyer on CNBC's Squawkbox Contrasting the Budget Priorities of the GOP and the Democrats

See video

Steny Hoyer joins us this morning with reaction. good to see you. good to have you back.

good to be with you.

you know, the do you think that's true?

first of all i'm not sure your initial premise was correct.

started from zero.

we had a lot of fits and starts to get to where we got, but i would hope that's not the case. we had a good meeting in the white house yesterday. i think a good, frank discussion. i think the p of that $4 trilli he wants to cut over the next 12 years and rely on revenues that is paying for what we buy for the other third, which is essentially the formula that the commission set forward. david stockman in referring to the alternative ryan budget made it very clear that he thought that was not a reasonable alternative. and then in fact, we had to rely to a much greater degree than the republicans who say absolutely no on revenues.

well, let me ask you this. the ryan proposal is a resolution that nobody expects to become law, obviously. is the president's first speech the equivalent of a resolution in that it has within it the capacity for compromise and change?

i think it does. absolutely. and when you say the ryan budget not going to become law, of course, buts don't become law. the president doesn't participate in that process. but --

speeches don't become law either though. that was a speech last night. that wasn't a proposal.

nor did i say it was. that was your premise, not mine.

why don't you come over to our side. come over to the other side, steny.

the fact of the matter is -- i don't think i'm going to do that.

think about it.

the fact of the matter is there needs to be not another side. there needs to be a meeting of the sides. we need to reach agreement, we need to reach agreement on extending the debt limit so that this country pays its bills and doesn't put the domestic or international marketplace in chaos. we need to come to agreement how we're going to cut spending if ourildren and grandchildren are going to inherit a country that is successful and competitive in the international markets. i think what the president did was put on the table his proposal as to how we ought to get there. mr. ryan's put on what the republicans' proposal is to get there. now we need to sit down, do some hard thinking, make some compromises. but there is no alternative to getting a handle on the finances of this country, period. the american public knows that and almost everybody on the hill knows that. what we can't do, however, is in the process undermine, and this is what the president said the most vulnerable in america that we have a responsibility of trying to help and lift up and educate and make sure we can outinnovate and outbuild our competitors. and we need to make sure that we contribute to paying for what we are continuing to buy even in a reduced budget scenario.

congressman, in his speech yesterday, the president set out a medium -- for physical adjustment. can he speak to how that's going to interact with the shorter term issue which is the debt ceiling how do the two come together?

we discuss the debt ceiling yesterday. i made the observation that everybody in the room adopts the premise that not raising the debt ceiling is not an option. every republican made that premise and every democrat made that premise. jamie dimon has indicate fundamental that happened, there would be chaos in the fiscal community and would undermine our economy very, very badly and our credibility in international markets. i think there is agreement that's not an option. my suggestion was look, i think the markets would be stabilized. i think the american public would see it as a real victory if we came together and said on this, we can agree because it's in the best interests of our country and it's essential to do. that didn't come out of that meeting, unfortunately. but i think in the short term, what we may do and what i hope we will do is vote on that in a bipartisan way with a realizion that there's no other option. mr. captor and mr. boehner said that. i think we all understand that.

leader Hoyer, do you think it's going to be possible just for these entitlements, even just folks on medicare and medicaid, do you think it's going to be possible to just generate enough revenues to basically keep this -- you know, the president made a lot of comments about this is the america that i know. no one's going to change what america stands for. do you think it's going to be possible to keep medicare and medicaid essentially as they are and raise taxes enough to pay for that, or do you think we actually do need to fundamentally change those two entitlements?

i think the key word there is fundamentally. my own view is that -- and i've said this in a speech that i made over a year ago i think at this point in time, we need to look at entitlements and restrain spending on these entitlements. make sure that they are fiscally sustainable over the long-term and are available for people in the future. the issue really that the president raised and ryan raises, the republicans want to change fundamentally the nature of medicare and medicaid. the guarantee that is there that people can rely on to what is either a voucher plan or a payment on which people couldn't rely and subject seniors to all the risk of a, whether they could get insurance and b, whether or not they can afford that insurance. to that extent, i think that again, fundamental is the issue. i think the character of those two entitlements need to be maintained but i think clearly they need to be addressed. they need to be addressed to contain costs to make them affordable in the long run.

good to talk to you as always. steny Hoyer.