VAN SUSTEREN: Well, so the whole point of just -- just -- I mean, you would think they'd get rid of it totally, if that's the problem. Just putting off for a year, of course, then raises the sinister question that this is just done to get through the midterms.
RYAN: I personally believe that that's the case. I believe this was done for political reasons.
VAN SUSTEREN: Just because -- because it's midterm elections.
RYAN: I believe that's the case.
VAN SUSTEREN: I tell you what I...
RYAN: You know, we also think we have a better case to make getting rid of -- delaying the rest of the law, and that's the case we're going to prosecute.
VAN SUSTEREN: I'll tell you what I -- I'm suspicious of, that it was done on July 2nd, right before the 4th of July weekend, sort of in an effort to minimize the impact to the media. But even more importantly is that a lot of decisions of businesses based on that mandate. And I'm really curious when they made a decision to delay the mandate for employers because if it was back in February (INAUDIBLE) that affects people's jobs.
VAN SUSTEREN: If -- or unless they just made it on the 1st of July. If they made it on the 1st of July, fine. But if they made it earlier, you know, it hurts Americans.
RYAN: We had a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee. We had the Treasury Department testify. They would not answer the question when they made the decision to do this.
VAN SUSTEREN: What, did they just deny it, or (INAUDIBLE) say they don't know?
RYAN: They just -- they just -- they just -- you know, they just slow walk it. They just say they don't know. And here's the other point...
VAN SUSTEREN: Couldn't they give you an estimate?
RYAN: No. Here's the other point. Businesses are already making these decisions. I mean, you already know the story about the 40-hour work week getting shrunk to 20-something hours. So many businesses have already been making their decisions. So we already see a lot of businesses making these decisions, maybe not as many with the delay, but they're all getting ready to say, I can't afford this. I'm not going to offer health insurance to my employees.
Unfortunately, I think that's one of the biggest problems with "ObamaCare." It's a terrible disaster of a law, but it's going to cause so many people to lose what they already have and like in health insurance even if this delay occurs. If you keep the individual mandates, if you keep all the other parts of "Obama care," this thing really is going to be a train wreck.
And that is why we want to prosecute the case to defund and delay this law. I think if we can get it delayed and point out how bad it is, we can make a stronger case for ultimately replacing it. And we're making progress. We're making progress with the votes we're having. And we're going to bring specifics to the country and we're going to let Democrats in the House of Representatives get to choose on these individual provisions, whether they stand with the American people or (INAUDIBLE) they stand with this law that is going to be a train wreck.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me tell you something I have a little bit of a rub with, and that's the continuing resolution that funds the government and the debt ceiling. Continuing resolution ends at -- or expires the end of September, and we have the debt ceiling that we're pushing up against.
And in spite of that, members of Congress, both sides, and the president all taking essentially August off instead of dealing with this right now. Why not -- why not deal with the continuing resolution and deal with the debt ceiling and take your vacation later?
RYAN: Well, I mean, people like me, as the chairman of the Budget Committee, I'm going to be working on this all August along with the people I work with on the Budget Committee on these issues. September 31st is when the continuing resolution expires. We'll be ready to go on September when we come back.
VAN SUSTEREN: But it sends such a bad message that everybody goes off! It has the appearance of (INAUDIBLE) even though you're working on it behind the scenes is that, you know, everybody's gone. We know where everybody's going. We know who's playing golf. We know who's going to Martha's Vineyard. We know all that stuff.
And the American people know that it's -- that the expiration date is the end of September. And you know, it's sort of you do your work first and then you play. And instead, we're going to have this big, huge, you know, burn the midnight oil and this crazy scene at the end of September trying to resolve it!
RYAN: I don't see it as a crazy scene at the end of September. I think we'll just, unfortunately, probably have a continuing resolution. We passed a lot of appropriation bills in the House already.
I think the debt limit is where you're going to see more negotiations occurring. We are not going to give the president a empty -- a blank credit card. We are going to insist on real debt reduction and economic growth policies as we get to these fiscal issues. We are not going to give him what we call a naked debt limit increase that he's asking for because simply, we've got to address the drivers of our debt.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. All right, let me ask -- let me talk to you about the war on poverty, something you mentioned today, and we never hear a discussion about war on poverty, but I have to congratulate you talking about it because poverty is a major problem in this country for so many Americans.
RYAN: This is an issue I care a great deal about. I've worked on it quite a bit. I had a hearing on this today in the Budget Committee. Look, next year is the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty. We have spent $15 trillion from the federal government fighting poverty, and look at where we are, the highest poverty rates in a generation, 15 percent of Americans in poverty. That's 46 million people.
The war on poverty has been fought with all this money and time, and poverty is winning. And so what we're trying to ask ourselves is, instead of measuring our poverty-fighting efforts on inputs, on how much money we throw at programs or how many people we put on programs, why don't we measure with results, with outcomes? How many people are we getting out of poverty on to lives of self-sufficiency on the ladder of life to enjoy the upward mobility that is -- that we know as the American idea? We're not measuring our poverty-fighting efforts based on outcomes and how we improve people's lives.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think many people think the Republicans, they don't care about poverty. And Republicans just want to starve people. They just want to do these horrible things to people. And I will say that, you know, since our poverty class has increased in the last 50 years, whatever we're doing is wrong. I mean, it's just not working.
Are you -- you know, are you willing to make a commitment, or can you make a commitment to the American people that -- you know, that we'll change this?
VAN SUSTEREN: We're actually going to get people out of poverty?
RYAN: Why do you think I'm doing these committee hearings?
VAN SUSTEREN: I don't...
RYAN: Why do you think I'm doing all this research?
VAN SUSTEREN: ... I was delighted you were.
RYAN: What we're saying is this is not working. We've got to do a better job on this. And let's figure out exactly what kind of policies. The problem is, if you try to measure compassion based on how much government you build in Washington and how many programs you spend and how many people you put on programs, then we'll never compete with that bidding contest.
And by the way, it's not working. It's actually trapping people in poverty. We need to go at the root cause of poverty to try and break the cycle of property instead of perpetuating poverty by funding the symptoms of poverty. And so these are the kinds of answers we Republicans in the House are going to go after to come up with better ideas for fighting poverty. This should not be a Republican/Democrat thing. This should be a what works thing, and that's what we're going to tackle.
VAN SUSTEREN: Prosperity beating poverty.
RYAN: Every time.
VAN SUSTEREN: Anyway, the president was speaking, at least today or yesterday, about reform, tax reform, in Tennessee. And he talked about things he wants to do for corporate taxes. And you call this, I guess, a raw deal?