VAN SUSTEREN: All right, I don't -- I didn't bring you here to defend the president's jobs bill, and I bet that's not going to happen. I am curious about one thing. One thing that I read is that to fund this $450 billion plan, that $400 billion will be to do away with charitable deductions for certain people who have a certain income.
Explain to me -- I mean, most people give to charity to help poor people. I mean, there's the occasional person who gives a piece of art to the museum, but usually, it's soup kitchens, it's hospitals, it's schools, it's cancer units at hospitals. Why are -- why are we trying to -- I mean, we will discourage people from giving if we take away that advantage. But then, of course, that cuts against your thing to get rid of the loopholes.
RYAN: But of all the loopholes and deductions that are out there, this is the fairest of them all, in my personal opinion. This is the most broad-based. This isn't Congress trying to prop up one industry, like say ethanol or solar panels. This is saying, If you donate to your charity and your community, you can write off that donation.
Taking away that to pay for stimulus spending that has already proven to fail -- it's two bad ideas. So number one, more borrowing and spending today. We've already proven that these rebates and these other things aren't working. Didn't work when Bush tried them. Didn't work when President Obama tried them. And then to do it by taking away the source of capital that go to charities at a time when we need our charities to step up because we have tough economic times -- that, to me -- I don't understand why they would propose that.
So permanent tax increases to pay for a temporary spending binge is not good economics. And whenever we've done these things in the past, they haven't created jobs. That's why people like me are saying, Here's an area where most of us agree. We have a tax system that's making us less competitive, that's hurting jobs and injecting tons of uncertainty into the corporations and businesses of America. Let's deal with that.
And that's why we're trying to give emphasis to these ideas. We passed a lot of ideas in the House to create jobs -- energy policy, regulatory reform. They're just stacking up in the Senate, where they haven't been acted on. This is one of those ideas where we would like to see an effort because we do hear Democrats say that they want to do this.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right (INAUDIBLE) should have a bonfire on the Mall, burn the tax code and start over.
RYAN: I'll bring...
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, I...
RYAN: I'll bring s'mores.
VAN SUSTEREN: Because, I mean, something just -- I mean, I -- I don't -- I bet there isn't a member of Congress who does his or own tax return. I mean, it's so complicated.
RYAN: Probably not. And I've been on the Ways and Means Committee for a long time now, for over a decade. And this is the committee that did a lot of this. And I just have to tell you, Greta, what the tax code is being used for today is to try and micromanage and social engineer economic activity instead of just raising a proper amount of revenue for the government in the most efficient way possible so we can maximize economic growth and remove barriers from businesses that want to get started, that want to invest.
You know, all the small business people I met with throughout the month of August at home and in Wisconsin are telling me, I have no idea what my tax rates are going to be in 2013. So why on earth would I invest and take a risk when I don't even know what it's going to cost me in just a year-and-a-half time? Those are the kinds of things that are putting a chilling effect on job creation, and more borrowing and spending today in whatever you want to call a stimulus package, I just don't think -- I think it's a poor substitute for actually fixing these broken problems.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, the video will be posted tomorrow on your website, I'm sure, so people can see your explanation of it. Thank you, Congressman.
RYAN: Thank you.