Here & Now

Reid Ribble Talks Sequester

Frederica Freyberg:

That was Governor Scott Walker on the sequester cuts. We return to Washington, DC, now, where 8th District republican congressman and member of the House Budget Committee, Reid Ribble, joins us by phone, and thanks very much for doing so, Congressman.

Reid Ribble:

I’m happy to be here. Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

So Governor Scott Walker takes exception to the arbitrary nature of the cuts, and thinks that the president ought take command of that. What’s your reaction to the governor’s point of view?

Reid Ribble:

I think his point of view is spot on. In fact, last Monday, I offered up a House bill that would actually give authority to each agency to prioritize spending. Listen, everybody in this country, whether we’re individual, a family, or a business, has to make determinations based on the amount of money we have, and we spend money on both high and low-priority things. But when money gets tight, you begin to remove low priority items out of your spending habits and focus your revenue on high-priority items. My bill would have done exactly that.

Frederica Freyberg:

So who or what hijacked that, as you described it, bipartisan bill of yours?

Reid Ribble:

It is a bipartisan bill, and it’s been hijacked by both parties, quite frankly. It’s very frustrating. We have republicans that feel if you give the Executive Branch that authority, that certain congressional districts may become victims of that authority, where the president would, what their fear is the president would redirect money to districts where you have democratic members of Congress. I think it’s nonsense. In fact, you can’t have managers manage this way. Then you have democrats that prefer, that believe that they’re getting the upper hand in the public with this, and they’re blaming republicans for the sequester, and if they leave it the way it is, they can drop it there, because they believe with the president’s megaphone, they’re successful in casting blame. What we need to do is stop blaming each other, because many of us in both parties and both houses, and in the Executive Branch signed off on this piece of legislation, so all of us have a part in this, and now I’m just trying to pick up the pieces.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why are we only now, and then very suddenly kind of getting serious about the implementation of sequestration?

Reid Ribble:

Well, the interesting thing is, as you’re alluding to, this bill was passed in August of 2011. Every federal agency has had ample time to plan and prepare for this. The Congress has written numerous letters over to the White House asking them for their plan, of how they would deal with sequestration. It’s a little surprising to me that all of a sudden, there’s this panic-stricken mode of management. This is indicative of how the federal government manages money. It’s frustrating. I understand and can share the frustration the American people have about it. But they should also be aware that in 2013, fiscal 2013, we will spend about $15 billion more this year than last year, inclusive of that $85 billion reduction in spending.

Frederica Freyberg:

Senator Tammy Baldwin would like to see what she calls a balanced approach toward deficit reduction by way of cuts and tax increases. Is “balance” off the table when it comes to tax hikes for you?

Reid Ribble:

No, it’s not off the table. It’s off the table in relationship to the sequester. We have to go back and remember historically what happened there. The Congress was faced with having to raise the nation’s debt limit. The president wanted to raise it by $2 trillion to get beyond the presidential election. To do that, we agreed to raise it at that level, if we would get this $1.2 trillion deficit reduction over a decade. So as it relates to sequester, revenues are off the table from my perspective, but I recognize that you’re not going to solve this country’s fiscal crisis without some level of revenue. However, the American people are skeptical, because they always see the tax increases, but they never see any restraint on federal spending. In fact, in my two years in Congress, this is the first legitimate effort that we’ve had to try to bring some fiscal restraint into how the government is managing its finances, and I think the step is a small but appropriate and necessary one to highlight the fact that our social services, our mandatory spending in this country, is now squeezing out necessary resources on other priorities that we have.

Frederica Freyberg:

Congressman Reid Ribble, we need to leave it there. Thanks very much for checking in from Washington.

Reid Ribble:

Oh, it’s good to be with you. Thank you.