to be gag radio. silence, witness documentary on options here. oh, i have no clock. and the top stories here on al jazeera and sedans. army and the power military rapids support forces of agreed to a 3 day extension on the shaking. despite the truce fighting continued in and around the capital called to me on sunday. give a morgan in how to while people here and the capital to me have not reacted much to this new announcement of a cease fire both by the rapid support forces and the food it needs army. because the seeing how the previous the fires have played out, they've seen the repeated airstrikes by the nice army. the artillery strikes by the rapid support forces and the continued presence of troops from both sides in part

of the capital to me. so many of them say that this, the fire is likely to end just like the other previous, the flyers. and that shows how much faith these people here have. well, food and fuel shortages in sudan is so bad that the world food program warns the conflict could plunge the entire east african region into a humanitarian crisis. aid workers say they do not have enough food to help new wave of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries. thousands of suit needs have been streaming across the border and countries such as chad in such of safety is around on the came and attacked a village and some people wanted to get out of their houses. they kill them in it all started around $12.00, and 3 am. we took refuge at a local police station. they told us we cannot stay because the fighting had started. i'd called my children and told them to take my grandchildren and leave. and then we fled on foot to paraguay is a conservative ruling party. candidate has won the presidential election. santiago penn years of colorado party has been in power for most of the last 75 years,

had sent a left rival their friend allegra lost by a huge margin, despite running a tight campaign this year newman watch, penniless victory speech in the capital as such. oh, the people and paraguay, a light for the country with a name and no money. then ronald marnie, cuba government has canceled the nation's biggest annual events, mondays, may day parade because of an acute fuel shortage. long queues at petro stations have seen some drivers wait for days to fill their tanks. a combination of us

sanctions and reduce fuel supplies from cuba is allied. venezuela is causing the shortages thousands of people who are gathering and sol, calling for better working conditions and wage increases valleys to mark international workers. they beheld right across south korea and trade unions in the philippines organized the march to highlight the hardships laborers at face battery low was at the rally. in manila, the daily minimum wage is about 10 or $11.00 in the provinces. it's even lower. so they want president for market junior to hear their call. the president has not certified as urgent built in congress that seek to raise the minimum wages. and now she's not in the philippines. she's in the united states to meet with us president joe biden. us regulators rushing to find a rescue or 2 by the troubled 1st republic bank. several major financial institutions have reportedly been asked to make bids. first republic shares plunged

last week after reveal that customers had drawn $100000000000.00 in deposits in march. laura enforcement officials in texas say they have 0 leads on the whereabouts of a man who shot and killed 5 people on friday. hundreds of police are searching for the suspects identified. it's francisco, or a peasant and $80000.00 reward has been issued for information vigil held in cleveland to remember the victims and yemen who the rebels released an army general after 8 years in captivity. 5 raja was freed following towards between who the representatives and members of the tribes rotate with headlines more news coming up right off to the bottom line by for the.

ready hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question. what happens if the u. s. government can't pay its debts? let's get to the bottom line. the. have you ever been in a situation where you've maxed out your credit cards and desperately need more money? but you've got know where to turn. well, i hope not, but that's exactly where the u. s. government may be right now. america has hit the ceiling, legally mandated by congress, on how much it can borrow. the limit was set last year at $31.00 trillion dollars, but the government already birth through that by january. now the 2 parties are gearing for a showdown to negotiate a new temporary limit by june. the republicans will control the house or using the opportunity to demand major cuts and rollbacks, the president jo biden's, agenda, especially those related clean energy and food assistance. the poor american, the white house says no way, just give us a new limit and then we'll talk one. so who wins in this game of political brinkman

ship? and is there really any limit to the runaway spending of the us government? today we're talking with bobby cogan, who worked in the biden white house as an advisor to the director of office of management and budget. he's now the senior director of federal budget policy at the center for american progress. and gordon gray, who served as a staff member for the senate budget committee and is currently the director of fiscal policy at the american action forum. let me just start out. see, i figured that one of use a democrat, one of your public, we're not going to tell the audience which yet, but, but let me just start for a 2nd with you, bobby, and ask, why is this such a big deal? this debate about debt limit can't the united states government just print more money, print it's way out of this problem and deal with this. what it, what are the, really the dynamics of this debate that many people are fearful could lead to the 1st serious default by the u. s. government? sure, and 1st, as you, thank you so much for having me on. so we are one of only 2 countries in the world with a fixed dollar debt. when a handful countries in the world also, you know,

have debt limits of another kind, you know, set as a percent of the economy. but we're one of the only 2 in this way. and ultimately what it is is we harkening back in targeting back hundreds of years. we used to have the issue each. we a congress, you have to approve each issuance of that in a law. and we change that to set a dollar limit. now every, every so often depending on kind of how much we rate and we've raised it and when what our new deficits are, we have to keep increasing. and again, again, last we will default and this is really a question of whether it is we want to actually the partner that which i think was great here would be catastrophic if we didn't pair. you agree, it would be catastrophic. can you work center for me? i can progress a lot of democrats work center for american progress. do they take seriously debt and default? i. so i think there's, i think there's a robust debate about the net effects of debt on,

on the economy. most people will say that all being equal, more debt, as a percent of the economy, might kind of have some, some sapping growth course. and they can get to this waiter. all else is never equal. you have to figure out what it is you do to lower the data, whether the net of whether the effects of worrying the debt or worse or better than the effects of what you did the, where we're at. but i think most people agree that all else being equal, you'd want lower data percent g, d p especially during good times and higher during bad times, deliberately to kind of boost aggregate demand. the threat of default is of course, really, really, really major. we might have had a technical glitch here there before, but we've never deliberately default the default and our dad because why would we, why would we deliberately say, i know we promised we pay this money, but we won't. that would be catastrophic. no one would trust the u. s. government word it would a would send interest rate, skyrocketing, obviously would cripple the economy and take and destroy many jobs. and then in addition to that, we wouldn't make our payments and that would hurt all the people who rely on those

payments. whether they're government contractors or social security recipients, or disabled veterans, or the people who's, who we help with food on their table or, you know, you name it the government, there's a lot of things. it couldn't. we had a debt level mandated that level in 2002 of $6.00 trillion dollars today when it's $31.00 trillion dollars. how did that little number become so big? well, a couple things. there will, 1st of all, one of the, one of the challenges in using nominal numbers is that we allow, you know, decades of inflation just kind of send those up anyway. but unfortunately, over the last 20 years we've had global wars. a, you know, once in a 100 year pandemic, we've had a great recession. we've had somewhat calamitous events confront this country. and we are privileged to live in a country that has the wherewithal to respond robustly. and it's actually

interesting, as we think about the current debate right now, which is it used to be that congress had to pass a law to issue was basically a single issue of debt and right so rare. but obviously the federal budget has changed substantially. and now the debt limit acts as a limit used to basically be an allowance so that they didn't have to pass individual laws. but we've gotten some, what's addicted to deficit spending and, and the growth of indebtedness that, that dynamic has flipped entirely. why isn't there more discussion about a defense budget this that's approaching a trillion dollars? that seems to be sake, sacrosanct for some reason, even in both parties. whereas you've got a debate on what kinds of cuts you have to put in place to either protect social security and medicare. or you have some republicans who actually want to cut social security and medicare in order to keep those trust funds solvent. so unpack it for

us. sure. and so i'm part of the issue behind all of this is over 70 percent of every non interest dollar we spend goes directly to people that's in the form of stuff like medicare and social security and medicaid and snap. it's also in the form of, you know, kind of direct payments to help people for their groceries or i or that yeah. how people for the groceries or, or help with child care. so that's kind of over 70 percent of the rate remaining bit is sort of it's resurgence investment in the future. it's transportation infrastructure and it's the military. and so part of the issue behind all of this is that the government, the government's doing is quite popular. and so figuring out what you would cut 1st of all, it's probably unpopular to do it. and 2nd of all, it might have deleterious effects to do it because most of what we're doing is kind of directly helping people in the moment are investing in the future. as for what the, you know, what it is that why it is that the military budget is kind of largely untouched.

and the rest of it is kind of always in the chopping block. that's in issue of politics. that military spending as a percent of g d p has declined significantly on the 20th century, but of course that they're too big reason. so again, it's a big dollar amount of dollars, but it's, it's been declining their kind of 2 reasons. they're one, you know, we used to be engaged in massive wars all the time. and now while we obviously are always engaged overseas, right. on the full, you know, the full kind of breadth of the way we are is significantly down. and the 2nd one is that the u. s. is significantly bigger than every other country. so if the u. s . spends on 3 percent of its g d p, i think it's a little bit more, but it spends threeish per cent of its g d p. and the military, that is a lot more than another country. you see the status of the us spends more, you know, around as much next 10 countries combined. we're not spending 10 times as much as percent of g d p that we're big country. and so we now we can do a lot, gordon county, we're the state of play is right now. you know how speaker kevin mccarthy has put

out a plan. yep. and the plan says let's keep so security and medicare, solvent where they are. but he's saying to get the debt ceiling increase that we want, we've got to have cuts in other areas that the democrats and president biden has responded very, very strongly against leader mccarthy. speaker mccarthy. how, what's your take on that? say to play. i think the legislation that the speaker put together is very much an opening bid. essentially the, the white house and congressional democrats pointed their fingers and kevin mccarthy says, you know, put up or shut up. now this week is where the rubber meets the road. and he, it's now on him to find the votes for this proposal. i wouldn't stop you there for kevin mccarthy defined the votes for his own proposal. right. might he not have? he's the speaker of the house. he's got a majority in the house, might not have the vote for his own proposal. it is,

it is possible that he doesn't have a vote. his majority is sufficiently slim. and his majority is populated with, with a number of members who are not widely inclined to support anything that a leader puts out. and one element of the debt limit historically, is that there are always members, republicans, and democrats that are in transit on this issue. and they essentially say, i cannot vote for this, or i will not vote for sometimes those are a little different. one is the cannot, is my, my constituency will, will eat me alive, and i will not get re elect. does anybody remember that president joe biden did not vote for a debt limit increase in 2002, when george w bush was president nor did. and how did they explain that? the former, the last democratic president, president obama, also voted against the debt limit under george w bush. and the rationale was rhetorically, very similar to what in trenches it's on the other side. so all this is about, you know, the full faith and credit of the united states, you know,

facing potential collapse. they risk that before. so does it undermine their credibility to de bobby when talking to republicans and saying don't put the u. s. government at risk? yeah, i think you can absolutely call packers and individual members. you see that all throughout, at the end of the day, politicians are politicians and they want to make the point they want to make. i think my frame would be in terms, in terms of the bipartisanship of what you know, queen increases to bit that limit. we had 7 clean ones under, under president bush and those were all large. they were all very bipartisan. it's true. you have plenty of democratic members who did not vote for them and you had some republicans, you didn't, but those are very bipartisan increases. and there were 3 under present trump, and those were also very bipartisan increases. kevin mccarthy voted for all 3 of them. when we got to the democratic presidents, all of a sudden they were a lot less bipartisan, i think that's, that's kind of the point that i would make it through. you can find individual

members call the parker, see, we're not wrong to do it. but, but the, but there's a big difference here that when it comes to be a democratic president, you get to see stuff where they say, i mean, democrat, didn't say for instance, under president trump, we will only consider our opening bid is for you to i don't know, do you medicare for all and raise the minimum weight? you know, they didn't say this is our opening bed. they, you know, they did to by person increase and entry had individual members who might a push, but i think there's kind of a kind difference going on here. it doesn't take a. busy well, you know, when incisive political scientist to look at governance in the united states is being divisive in fraud. and when you, sir, roll that into a scenario where if congress cannot pass an increase in the debt limit, well, now you have a reason to fundamentally doubt that proposition that the treasury is a riskless security. it forms the basis the bedrock, the benchmark for global financial markets. banks are capitalized in it. they

underpin bobby what happens to regular citizens out there? what happens, i mean like what, what, what are that? i hear this is going to be a to nami, of chaos. what is that? what's, what's happening to regular people? so just to, to, to the extent that the treasuries are the, the bedrock of the financials in every financial traction. transaction that a, a private citizen engaged in becomes costlier. and so that is your mortgage, your auto loan. so everything with an interest rate, everything that interaction the financial markets and people will understand just how interrelated. all these are because everything in their life will become more expensive. on top of that, you will have disruptions to the federal government. and so that, that can involve, they will have to basically husband the cash that they have, that they should be using the pay other bills and that can have consequences. now for the broader macro economy that can have consequences for employment. and so all of these are layered on top of an economic outlook where, you know,

nobody is out there saying, oh, we're heading for boom times people are talking about the risk of recession. so we're adding this on top of i think, existing anxiety about about the economy for every american and in probably a lot of people suck. it's terrible. and i just think go on top of it. so gordon did a great job of weighing out like all the ways in which the financial factor starts to crops re default. and in addition to that, the government is forced to immensely pull back on it spending. right, so you're no longer allowed to run a net deficit. and if deficits i don't actually have off the top my head what the projected deficit this year is. but if it were to be a trillion dollars, then that would be a trillion dollars of west spending into the economy. and as i said, the hyper majority of what we do goes directly to individuals. that means there's 70 percent less of that. that's going directly to individuals. and so that means everyone's paycheck. i burns. wallet is small, is lower. you can afford last food to put in the table. you can afford last child

care, all the things that we do to make everything be in, and that's not happen. your social security numbers are down. there's a book coming out in june that i looked at called the paradox of debt by richard. vague and vague makes the point that as debt has increased in the united states, government debt, household savings has gone up, but he's is what's very, very disconcerting. is the inequality gap that those folks with assets tend to gather much more assets. and as that debt rises, the federal government debt the, the private gains of the most wealthy and society are there. so i just mention that that's i because joe biden has come out and said it part of this is we need to pump up the i r s. and we need to tax the rich more and deal with these social contract stresses. is there any resonance for that within regard of talking about the debt ceiling politics and it says, is there, is there any room for that to run? yeah, i, that's actually a great point. i looked at this in 29 team and i was working with the senate budget

committee and the net assets of the night of the nation are significantly up even netting out the debt that the government holds. right? so the assets and that the government, the government that are going up and up and up and up and up, i think they're up 213637 1000000. as of the why we didn't argue that like increasing. that's a good thing. well, so whether or not it's a good thing, what's very clear is that the line that you hear that we are leaving the next generation worse and worse off that's, that's just not true. people are getting richer and richer and richer on a real per capita basis. the issue, as you said, is that where that, where the accumulation of wealth is, is really bad. you have some people who are doing extremely well and you have a lot of people who are falling behind. and that's, you know, that's where we really ought to be focus and it gets that would be my, my report to the idea that we can't possibly afford to raise are debt when that because we're over leverage,

we're not going. so i would not be someone who would argue that we can't afford to raise a debt limit. rather i would, i would argue that we have to raise a debt limit. and when we are going to consider doing so, we should also consider the budgetary context in which we're doing. now. the proposal that this speaker mccarthy put forward. i don't think anyone's under any illusion that that piece of legislation is going to be signed into law. i don't think that the send, it's going to pass it. i don't think that the president states right now is, you know, breaking out his pen to sign into law either. and so, to the extent that the, a negotiation ensues and we increase that, that limit, and there's a negotiated a budgetary component to that. it's going to be fairly small ball. you know, we're going to run 20 trillion dollars in deficits over the next 10 years. we're going to spend $80000000000.00 and the high, you know, the legislation,

100 trillion trillion. use me 1000000000 horribly in there. but the legislation and kevin mccarthy put forward may reduce spending by 4 and a half trillion over the next 10. let me ask you question, why do they go after climate change? food stamps, then say military spending is great. it's really not just about fiscal conservatism . if you are saying, okay, so i'm just nervous in, in the, in that, you know, the targets they're going in this to and the reason will basically they have each republicans and democrats, particularly over the last 6 years, have all agreed that the most significant parts of the federal budget, so that in the major entitlement programs and the tax code are off limits. and once he walled off all but 10 to 20 percent of the federal budget, then no matter what, when you are only negotiating on a small sliver of the federal budget,

you're not touching any element of the real budgetary risk that we're facing. so i actually think in this debate that we're seeing here is that there's a lot of risk that we carry, that we already talked about about not increasing the debt limit. and i think the upside budgetary is fairly small. and so i do think it is worthwhile to have this conversation recognize where in this current environment is there some compromise on, on the budget, but also recognize that we're still have a lot of work to go. and this probably is not the debate we're going to tackle the budget problem isn't crazy to have this debate at all. i mean, when you kind of look at the fact that they're only going to if, if they succeed and they go with kevin mccarthy or joe biden plan, we're talking about a one and a half $1000000.00 increase to this 31.4. so that would get us up in about a one and a half trillion more leeway in the government debt that can be carried. what is it

by him? is this just just a sure another nightmarish, you know? yeah, why the authorial contest in this right before the election? yeah, i mean that one quick response and i want to get to something else. you actually, he's 1500000 or march 2024, right? right. whichever comes 1st. so that is showing that even if, even if it got him longer than we still want to set it up to have a fight right before. but, you know, getting to your 1st point. sure. you know what about this in the 1st place? what i would say is, i think that, that, that limits should be completely separate from whether we default it's just a separate question from what our fiscal pass should be. i mentioned in the beginning that most countries don't do it the way that we do. and that's because they know that if you want to change your deficits and if you want to change that, it change your spending and tax was right. you don't say while we should think about best or else for default, right? like that's not, that's not an ok position. so congress can and should debate it's fiscal path,

but be shouldn't do it with the pretext of if this doesn't work out right, then we might default in our obligations, right? that's not an appropriate way to do it. and i would just say we also do have a debate about fiscal policy. every single year rate speaking, mccarthy focused mote. the hyper majority of what he was. blackmail, you know, kind of where it's not mine, but it been, it raises yesterday. and also the deal that kevin mccarthy did to be in government . you actually have statements of some of the g o. p members that supported kevin that were hold out something came on board. they've been out saying we want to wreck the federal government budget process. we want to wreck, we want to see government fail and that, so i just want to have people know that while that may not be the bulk of abuse, it's certainly become part of the equation. you disagree? i think i would, i would just want to at least note that at the end of the day to increase the debt limit, you need to have a bill at the house in the senate and the president has to sign it right now. there

simply aren't the votes for a clean debt limit. there aren't the votes for it in the senate and earn the vote for it in the house right now. i understand why that would be frustrating and inconvenient but individual elected legislators have to be the ones who take this phone and right now a clean debt limit does not have enough votes to pass the house and senate. and so real quick, go to your guy, answer your prediction. are they going to pass this your view? i think they will increase the debt limit. i think they will increase that. i don't think they're going to pass the speakers legislation. so you're an optimist. that a deal will get done a lot. but bobby, are you an optimist or pessimist, i'm bad at these predictions. i think i think the risk of default is the highest has been in, in, in, in u. s. history. i agree with that. i, internally, i was around 5050, which is a coward's, a coward number. right. and economist. yeah. 33 didn't really. yeah. you know,

whether you're at 2550. as gordon said, if you take people at their face at what they've said, they're statements, if it's valued, that there aren't the votes. we might find that when we're really close to it, we could have like a target situation where we're right there. and then we, we find that there are the votes, but i would say the only reason that there might not be the votes is that some people have decided that that is inappropriate. now that biden's president, when it was appropriate before again, there was huge bipartisan support, publicans, it's spent a big chunk of that day and to go to this, got it. i put out a report a month ago that said the level, it's not about the level of debt, it's about the trajectory of that. but it's just that if you, if you hadn't done the bush tax cuts there, bipartisan extensions and the from tax cuts, then debt will be declining forever as a percentage g d p. back to any conversation, i wish we had more time, which i rarely say and talk about debt and debt limits. bobby kogan,

senior director of federal budget policy of the center for american progress, and gordon, gray, director of fiscal policy at the american action forum. thank you so much for great conversation. thank you. thank you here. so what's the bottom line here is the paradox growing. the national debt can actually help grow the economy and it can increase the private sector as well. even as the government's debt burden gets heavier. but too much debt can drive up inflation, it can make the dollar lose value, and it can undermine confidence in the future. no one has a magic wand and knows how to balance america's budget no matter what the country's leader say. so yes, america will keep printing money. as for the politicians though, the debate on the debt ceiling is going to go to the break. i think we're probably going to be ok. still, there's always a chance that someone may misstep, misjudge, or misfire. and then things can go downhill and really, really fast. and that's the bottom line. ah,

a fraud takes on the big issues. this is not one off. he's talking about a systemic issue here. black gloves don't really matter in the police were unflinching questions is war with lawanda, imminent rigorous debate? people who are dying because of lack of medical treatment, challenging conventional wisdom. the fact that people are starting to get angry about this is in itself a sign of progress. join me markham, on hill for upright. what al jazeera, the latest news, as it breaks the fights, and i think just been confined to the catholic on all sides. claim control of major facilities, but so far it will cause to confirm who has the upper hand with detailed coverage. people have come here to demonstrate against roving police violence in the demonstration from around the world. and even when doctors here are able to make an early diagnosis and guarantee the transportation of the 60 still faith. another

challenge lou i'm about as an endo, on the top stories on all disease up sedans. army on the power military rapid support forces have agreed to a 3 day extension of a shaky seas far despite the truce. fighting is continuing in iran in the capital hall to him on sunday. hey, morgan is in khartoum. while people here and the capital, hard to him have not reacted much to this new announcement overseas fired both by the rapid support forces and the city needs army because they've seen how the pre.