tv Bloomberg Politics Hosts Forum on Presidential Candidates Economic Plans CSPAN October 13, 2016 9:41pm-11:08pm EDT
trump campaign in the last week. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> so, welcome everybody. , it's great to see everybody again at the amazing at the table breakfast politics. sponsored of course by the pete peterson foundation. we're thrilled to have your and people live streaming on bloomberg.com. we are really thrilled to be talking about the economy. i know that over the past week, we really want to focus on issues that matter. i am really looking forward to hearing substantive talk today about both candidates and their economic policies and not some of the other things people in my profession at the been sent talking about the past week. mark halperin has great guests lined up, and it will be fantastic. i will bring up the executive vice president of the peter peterson foundation. thank you guys so much. have a great event. [applause]
thank you soi: much for coming this morning. my name is loretta ucelli, and i am the executive vice president of the peter g. peterson foundation. we are a nonpartisan organization, and our mission is to educate and engage americans in the nation's long-term fiscal challenges. and find solutions that help us achieve and maintain a prosperous and growing economy. we believe that long-term debt is a critical issue for the economy. whatever the issue is that you care about, education, the environment, national security, our ability as a nation to deal with it is grounded in addressing our long-term fiscal challenges. we also believe that debate, discussion, and dialogue are critical in this presidential election and that's why we are , a very proud and enthusiastic
sponsor of events like this with bloomberg politics. we are certainly looking forward to this morning's discussion with a range of policy experts. and with everything going on in the news, i think there's a lot more to talk about as well. and i'm sure that mark will take us through all of that. but thank you for joining us, and it is great to be here for this discussion. [applause] announcer: ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage mark halperin, managing editor bloomberg politics, host of with all due respect, and bloomberg television. mark halperin: so we're going to the big policy discussion today but that's not all we're going , to talk about because the question of whose policies are going to be thought about is
treated seriously come january is hanging in the balance. i was in lakeland, florida, yesterday at 6:00 covering donald trump, and between the time i left that event to come here and now, a lot has happened that's going to impact this race in ways that are not currently knowable. so ken goldstein, my colleague , is going to,, and we are going to talk a little about what is happening in the news. and we will dabble in some of that with everybody else, but we are mostly going to have a discussion of the themes and issues the peterson foundation does so well on, and they are obviously one of the few groups i would say sadly but thank god for them that is always going to inject substantive discussions into what is happening. i am actually relatively optimistic no matter who wins the white house over who controls congress that we'll see -- we are going to see a flurry of substantive activity on fiscal issues and economic issues in the beginning of a new administration, the new congress. because there's actually a fair amount of agreement about what
are the right issues to work on. we will talk about that, but we first, will talk about what's going on in the news. i want to a few to get volunteers to just watched donald trump's twitter account during the event and tell me anything that goes on because any time i am moderating a discussion like this, there is a chance something will be overtaken by events in 140 characters or so. ken goldstein, professor a cross, he is disciplinary genius about polling and advertising and now hopefully an expert on allegations of sexual harassment too because that's what we're going to start. thank you. kenneth goldstein: thank you very much for having me. mark halperin: friday morning donald trump was behind. , he had a plausible path to about 265 electoral votes. no obvious path to to waited 70 -- path to 270, but once he gets
to 265, you were within hailing distance. since then we've had the access access hollywood video. we had the debate and now we've , had this latest round of allegations. so if you're the trump campaign, just talk about, there's very limited public polling. bloomberg has a poll in pennsylvania that shows trump doing very badly, but he's been doing very badly in pennsylvania , and their electoral college calculations do not hinge on pennsylvania. if you are the trump campaign now is it possible to get good , data to figure out where you stand, or are things moving too fast? kenneth goldstein: there is also the question about whether they invested in the infrastructure to gather that data. but when you were just saying you want a couple people here to keep an eye on donald trump's twitter account while we're talking, mark was not joking. right? i mean actually on friday, it seems like a long time ago, i
was on the set about to talk to mark when the trump news broke. people were screaming in my ear. i was actually out in san francisco, and the blue angels were out there, and they're like zooming by, and car alarms were going off. and i am like wow, what i'm , going to talk about? i was going to talk about the pennsylvania ad by. you have heard michelle obama say at the convention and in -- and then hillary clinton said, when they go low, we go high. so when things get crazy, i get boring. mark halperin: use a little boring. kenneth goldstein: let me be boring. at the end of the day, elections are about what the shape of the electorate looks like and how those different segments performed. it is always a little embarrassing as a political scientist. we spend all this money, determine democrats vote for democrats and republicans vote for republicans. that's the big finding if you remember that from your intro to american politics course.
so when you have two candidates -- are so deeply unpopular we can talk about how unpopular donald trump is, and he seems to be coming less popular. hillary clinton is also the second most unpopular person to ever run for president of the united states, to be a major party nominee. so this race sort of devolved to a generic democrat versus a generic republican. and when you have that, democrats have about, depends on what turnout is, but between 7% percentage point advantage in the shape of the electorate. donald trump needs to maximize republican loyalty and needs to win independence by -- independents by significantly won than met romney independents. do we think things happen in the last couple days that are going to maximize republican turnout, minimize democratic turnout, make republicans more loyal and get swing voters to swing to trump in a way greater than
romney got them? and i think the answer to that is unlikely. i think we can see some movements over the last whatever it is, 28, 27 days here that make this a three-point race or four-point race, getting into field-goal range. since everyone seems to be using sports analogies this week, although different sorts. but currently we are not there. even when trump was having a little bit of movement before the first debate and seemed to have stabilized things before friday in the second debate, he was still not ahead. and as you said, it still would have been an inside straight to get to 270 electoral college votes. right, -- mark halperin: right, so picking a fight with the speaker of the house who is a member of his own adopted party, is it possible
that could help him with at least a piece of appealing to independents? maybe at the extent of losing some republicans. ken goldstein: it depends what you mean by independents also. this is a big squishy concept. many of you are involved in politics and no that the true number of independents is probably like 10% of the most, not the 30% or 35% that you see in most polls. so maybe it swings some of those disaffected republicans who are tea party folks who don't want to say they are republicans, so they fall into the independent category. but at the end of the day, that's not the path to 270, that's not a path to 50 plus one. mark halperin: is the strategy
begun at the debate and according to our colleague josh green, going to continue today of highlighting bill clinton's personal life something that can allow them to consolidate support amongst republicans? to get that piece of it done? ken goldstein: i think that's a possibility. we've not had a lot of public polling. and if i can get to your phone, i can see the text you have about the internal polling. so you are going to move that away. [laughter] ken goldstein: we don't have a lot of public polling. trump is still getting to support -- you see these stillnes -- trump is getting massive republican support. it is not high. it is the 70's rather than the high 80s, and that matters. so i think the continued focus on the clintons gets him that republican support back up to the high 80's. he needs that to be in the 90s.
he needed to turn out to be high, and he needs to be winning independents. there's been a lot of this analysis. everyone became an expert on white people in the last month, especially like white people in pennsylvania. no one here has ever been to western pennsylvania unless you were driving through the -- driving through. everyone became an expert on white people in western pennsylvania. there's not enough of them, is the truth. when you talk about missing white voters in places like ohio, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, there are missing white voters. the problem is for republicans is they are mostly dead. they are missing white voters from 10, 20 years ago. didn'ts not enough that turn out that will turnout in the presidential election. mark halperin: let's talk about the mystery of the republican party's place with the electorate. a lot of hand wringing if they lose the presidential. they will have lost the popular vote in six out of seven, and yet lots of states have , republican governors including a lot of blue states. they control both chambers of congress, they control lots of
state legislatures. take wisconsin a state you know , well. how can a state that elects scott walker discover three times basically a very conservative guy with policies that are opposed by labor unions and lots of groups on the left, how could that state be an impossibility for the republican party at the residential level? -- presidential level? ken goldstein: that's a really interesting question. not that your other ones were not as well. mark halperin: up my game. ken goldstein: even in high turnout state like wisconsin, you have a million more people voting in a presidential election year than a midterm election year. i think it's understudied by nerds like me is the difference between the composition of a midterm electorate and a presidential election electric. remember my big brilliant political science, democrats vote for democrats, republicans over a couple can's? -- republican? 7%, 8%ts have a 6%,
advantage in presidential election year nationally and in a state like wisconsin republicans, even republicans have a percentage point advantage. so the republicans have lots to figure out at the presidential level, but at the midterm level, democrats need to figure out how to get those drop off voters. young people, nonwhite out to the polls, or you will continue to see republican state legislatures, republican governors which also have an impact on the u.s. congress because they are the ones drawing the lines for the congressional elections as well. mark halperin: right. tell me what you think donald trump's floor and ceiling and -- in the popular vote are right now. ken goldstein: i think -- mark halperin: the four-way popular vote. ken goldstein: i think the floor is 37, 38, and the ceiling is 42, 43. a very narrow range. mark halperin: so 43 he can't , win basically what you're telling us. ken goldstein: i think if you have -- i think hillary wins by five.
mark halperin: if he gets down to 37, does that mean the republicans lose the house or not necessarily? ken goldstein: when things go crazy -- people talk about there's got to be a wave or not a wave and to talk about the way -- wave too early. when these things happen, mark and i first met at abc many, many years ago. i think we met in a midterm election. when crazy things start happening is when it is the last weekend, and you are like that , race is competitive. so i think it would be difficult for the democrats to take control of congress, but if you see a complete explosion, we've already had explosions, i will not say complete explosion of the trump campaign, it may bring some seats into play. but what's been interesting is the republicans are holding on in some of these senate seats. i would not have thought i would have a conversation with you today where, i cannot imagine
ron johnson wins in wisconsin but charles franklin has a dust , bowl, within two. mark halperin: our pool today shows donald trump losing badly, double digits in pennsylvania, and yet pat toomey is within the margin of error as well. ken goldstein: exactly. mark halperin: take a minute to explain how that could be. at a time when people say there is not ticket splitting, there's ticket splitting. ken goldstein: at the time where there's not ticket splitting, there's ticket splitting. mark halperin: and then tweak that. ken goldstein: and republicans vote for republicans. listen, if i was the republican , and i think what you will see in ron johnson, he will basically start airing ads, and people will start airing ads on his behalf saying going to lose the presidency. if you want to have a check on hillary clinton, you need to vote for me. either way because i cannot talk about ads. i had written off wisconsin for
ron johnson. he had close to a hundred thousand dollars -- i have not looked at the poll, that they must have had a poll that was consistent with what charles was saying. mark halperin: we scratched the surface but that's all we're , going to get to do today. thanks. ken goldstein. [applause] so we are going to move on. we are going to talk about some policy and some economics, and our first person who is going to join me up here is peter navarro. he is a business professor at the university of california-irvine and economic trump'sto donald presidential campaign. how are you? thanks for coming. i'm going to start off by asking you about the news but on this level. you are a guy that cares about ideas. you support a candidate do you -- who you think will be the best president. when you see stories like we've seen lastly, allocations, how does that make you feel? peter navarro: i love the headline of the post today. did you read that yet?
mark halperin: which story? peter navarro: emails, wikileaks. i don't how you can start a conversation about what's going on without the bigger story of the wikileaks. we are going to see a constant stream of e-mails that are going to basically undress hillary clinton before the voters of this country and exposure as a -- expose her as a corrupt and incompetent official who is micromanaged by people inside her organization. and wikileaks are beautiful. let me give an example, because we are going to talk about the economy today. one of the things in economy is trade. the 2012 south korean deal, this was all hillary's baby. she went around asia as secretary of state promising the american people that that deal was going to create 70,000 new jobs. the peterson institute by the way was part of the think tank apparatus that gave her the analytics for that.
ok? what do we know now? we know that deal cost 95,000 jobs, mostly in the swing states of ohio, indiana, illinois. our exports did not move a bit. that needle did not move to south carolina -- south korea, but our imports would off the chart. we doubled our deal with south korea and wikileaks, this is beautiful. it's like we've got john podesta's emails, right, and her foreign-policy advisor is warning her not to touch the south korean deal in public because it would quote drive them nuts, right? and this is what's going on at least from the trump campaign looking at that. it's corruption versus allegations, and you've got to talk about it. and the peterson institute -- i love being here really, because the peterson institute has been the leading think tank on globalization, and they have been wrong every time, before
they were even the peterson institute. there were economists who told us nafta was going to give us 200,000 new jobs. right? what did we do? we lost 850,000 jobs at our -- and our deficit with mexico went from zero to $60 billion a year. the peterson institute told us that china going into the wto was going to the last 15 years our average and median household income has increased by what? zero. and our growth rate has gone from 3.5% which we entertained from 1947-2001, the 1.9 present -- 1.9%. that is 1.2 million jobs you don't create. you do that for 15 years, you're in trouble. now the peterson institute is telling us that trans-pacific
partnership is going to provide us the same kind of goodies for the american people. we are not buying this at the trump campaign. the american people are not buying it and the swing states are not buying it. and e-mails are really revealing about this. this will thing about how hillary clinton speaks, ok, let's suppose you folks are donors come your corporate donors and on hillary clinton. i'm telling you i am for the tpp and i'm telling you i'm for keeping the regulations so they will not hurt you do and then i go out on the stump and until people just the opposite. that public force versus the private voice. it's in the wikileaks. i was in i was debating austan goolsbee in springfield ohio two weeks ago. he was obama's advisor and he will be hillary's advisor. in 2008 when obama was running against hillary, he went to cleveland and gave a speech promising that he would repeal
nafta. he promised he would repeal nafta. does that sound familiar? that's what donald trump says he's going to do, right? at the same time austan goolsbee was sneaking into the canadian consulate in chicago telling the canadians that don't worry, we got you covered. that's just maneuvering. >> i'm not being facetious, but i want to bring about darfur is grave and move on to some of things he just appeared someone is dedicating a lot of time helping donald trump get elected how did you waking up to reduce other headlines about allegations? >> if you want to talk to you want to talk about those things? we've got to bill clinton who abuse in terms, who raped women, and the woman basically who enable that and punished women. if women in america want to vote for the clinton team, that's what you've got the what do we have with donald trump? we've got words and we've got false allegations.
do we want to go down this road bloomberg? i would rather talk about the economy. >> one question and had responded you say they are false allegations. i'm here to talk of economics. look, we want to have an election about the issues. let's talk about the economy. let's talk about foreign policy. immigration, health care. but every time i come to places like this are good on the radio or tv it's like they're asking the questions that are outside my later i'm going to stay in my lane and tell you we go over all those quotes. >> donald trump is talked about trade quite a bit but he said he is for trade agreements. tell me if he got to penetrate agreements he would want, passed and signed, explain how quickly and in what ways that would affect economic growth in this country, how that would work our mission is to get back to 3.5% growth rate we did that for
five decades. >> how much of that would be simply through trade? >> probably about half, half of that. a fairly detailed conservatively estimate report, we went through the benefits of to growth from tax cuts, reduced regulation, modest, and trade. >> and have would be trade speak with the same roughly, yeah. but here's the problem. when you ask me that question what we all do in this world, particularly the analytics is we sidle stuff. it's like let's look at tax policy, let's look at energy policy. think about the synergies and interaction. on tax policy he cuts the corporate tax from 35%, the highest in the world among
developing countries, down 15%. what does that due to the trade equation? what it does is it changes the incentives to afford and gm to stay in michigan rather than go to michigan under in mexico. it increases nonresidential fixed investment which moves the growth rate but if you also have your production facility in michigan, you also are selling into the american market which helps your trade deficit rather than going to mexico and some back into the american market. when you say which of these, which parts of growth, it's synergy speak what country and time period pursue the tiger trade policy that led to faster growth speak with let me show you how this would work. let's do the numbers but if you think about who we have trade deficits with its a relatively small band of country. germany, japan, south korea, china, mexico. now, the approach, the trump strategy takes it to recognize first of all the problems we have, the reason that deficits
with each of those countries is different. china is -- i'm going to answer question or china's problem, mexico is a trade deal problem, rules of origin. what we want to do surgically is negotiate bilaterally with each of these countries and say look, for example, germany, japan, south korea, by a little bit more of our petroleum products. that will help us. use our bargaining power tickets can like when you're a big business and you've got small vendors, you negotiate better. that's the whole thing. we are cutting back trade deals and the think tanks telling us they a good deals and then we wind up getting what we got -- >> pursued a strategy and -- >> they all do. if you look, look, europe has got trouble. they grow slower than we do so you can't talk in absolute terms but you got to talk in relative terms. in europe it's overregulated.
they have nowhere near the energy resources we have. they have what we call in economics and/or potential output in a lower structural growth rate. the problem is we are underperforming. every country out there besides us which is taking advantage of our markets is engaging in a mercantilist state run kind of approach to reducing their trade deficit and selling products to cause. we are not doing that. we are just saying, and into our markets and it's ok. >> we have a president whose approval ratings are in the 50s, the mid '50s -- >> remarkable, isn't? with the worst economy since world war ii. >> he looked out the trump economic proposals to everything you're talking about on trade, energy, the affordable car -- affordable care act a bad idea to talk about how donald trump if elected would work with 40 plus democrats in the senate and public opinions to make those things are reality.
>> i think he would be great at that. that's the art of the deal. let's think about what the obama and clinton administrations have offered us. really she makes no bones about this on the stump. she's going to raise taxes. no economic textbook tells you that could help us grow. she's going to continue with the increase in regulation that the obama administration has done, particularly on energy. nobody tells you that stimulative. they are responsible, obama led for the tpp just like clinton did, democrat against labor for china into the world trade organization. i don't know what their game is. what i do know is it took us over 230 years to run up a debt of $10 trillion. it took barack obama eight years to double that. it's a misdiagnosis. it's the idea that whenever we have a problem we can solve this through a keynesian stimulus.
what do they do? they ran the fiscal seems to imply that the federal reserve balance sheet by printing a bunch of money and that is not working to the reason is they misdiagnosed the structural problem associate with sending our factories and investment offshore and running massive trade deficits that but arithmetic and definition drag us down. >> should the transit have a federal system, a policy in place that has universal health coverage? >> i don't think so. now. look, the trump plan, and that's my opinion. trump, what donald trump is almost is to get rid of obamacare. obamacare, barack obama was a child when you get obamacare for for this reason that there were two things. let's go back to that debate. they were two things he had to accomplish in that mission. coverage and cost containment. the hard-won was cost containment. the easy one was coverage. just wave a wand and say let it be done.
he waved that want and select be done. he didn't do with cost containment and now the whole thing is imploding. the people were getting hurt worse by the thirtysomethings and the late twentysomethings who are caught in the advice. let's make no mistake about that. that was bad policy and bad politics. >> democracy does have universal coverage. what is the right goal regarding coverage for the federal government? >> not my lane. i can tell you this. obamacare is gone and we will start over because that's not working. by the way, when canada, when canadians need good care, they come across the border, right? when they need good care can they come across the border. >> so if donald trump as the republican house and say he has a republican senate if elected, what the realistic deficit reduction goal over the first -- >> that's a great question. one of the problems that we have in the analytics of all this is that all these think tanks out
there that are hostile to us, just look at the tax cuts. we have very positive offsets. if you got big deficits the way washington things, here i am, is if your a democrat its raise taxes, if the republican it's cut spending. what if you increase your growth rate by just one point or -- you soar. that's what we're going to do. >> let's talk macro numbers. he takes office if he wins in january 2017. what you would we have 3.5% growth?>> cop a plea by the end of u2. we want to eliminate -- probably by the end of the second year. that's doable with good deals. day one, moratorium on all new regulations that don't threaten public health and safety are not congressionally mandated.
it will be on a much larger gdp. so the effective deficit goes down dramatically. >> we want to cry when i revenue nurture away in create 25 million jobs. but what's the alternative here ? hillary clinton has told you she will continue obama. make no mistake about this. everyone in this room, the best you will do with hillary clinton is 2%. and probably worse. there's no way at all passed out with raising taxes, regulation, oil, natural gas and writing trade deals like south korea. >> the last time iran's surpluses in the 90s. is there anything bill clinton did regarding fiscal policy and economics you think it's worth copying to bring down the deficit? >> the clinton years were last
in the most inventive explosion of technological innovation that we've ever seen since the invention of the steam engine. is your golden years and everybody remembers them fondly. if you got out of the stock market, you can did. that had little to do with anything the government did. >> there's a big debate on that and economics teacher. i go through this in my courses and there's a big debate about whether herbert walker bush actually said at the clinton recovery by resisting the keynesian call to stimulus or not. you can probably give credit to both of those administrations for what happened. the real credit doesn't go to them. it goes to technology. make no mistake about what happened in those eight years. it was remarkable. >> we don't attribute to anything in terms of policy.
>> what i would attribute to bill clinton no-space. he made the worst decision of any american president in his tree on the economy when he pushed for china to get into the world trade organization. our world changed after that and you can look at the data. 3.5% growth since china came in with 300 billion new workers over the 15 year period. dumping, cheating, it's been difficult. whatever you want to attribute to bill clinton in the 90s, 10 times over. i think that the best president we've had in terms of economic growth is reckoned. if you look at what happened
with reagan. the >> per reagan is interesting. reagan came into office and here's a horrible situation in the 70s for some of us in this rumor number. here's three through eight of the administration he was hitting on 4% growth. but again, our gdp was growing so relative to our gdp, you almost have to bring that factor into the consideration. [no audio]
>> the good, the bad and the ugly. we get hillary clinton in cleveland talking to a bunch of high schools to dance the same independent movies analytics basically scores the trump then it's going to create a recession in specifically named mark c&d. she told back to high school students and implied that he was a republican to give him credibility. fact checker.work out all over her because that is the repeated lie. a big donor to the democratic party and to her. there's a credibility issue there. the tax policy center is coming out with this court today as aei and the tax foundation says their plan looks great.
tax policy center's books back. ideology comes into play. what they don't do and direct answer to your question. first of all they don't dynamically score the plan. that's critical. we live in a dynamic world in its second and one of my missions has been over the past month is to get people to do the analytics and evaluate the whole plan. if you've got tax cuts taking revenues down, ok. but if you've also got energy regulatory and trade reforms taking revenues up, let's look at the whole picture. >> peter, thank you so much. i would say slightly different perspective as an adviser to the clinton campaign and former chief economist of the vice president on budget and policy priorities. please come up and join us. thank you for coming.
>> thanks for coming. i'm going to respond to what peter said. we will replace that. >> i was not a political statement and all. >> you are someone like this election to be about policy differences between the two candidates. the clinton campaign says you shouldn't talk about personal things. it should be about policy. they spent a fair amount of time would you say both campaigns are guilty but not. >> both campaigns are actually talking more about policy in the last debate policies came up with the name i'd expect to but i do think that temperament are relevant and particularly issues
that is germane in this campaign when trump has really elevated this issue that it's not so much what i would call the policy framework changes in equality, changes in globalization, changes in bargaining power and unions in all the policies they think about good labors anders. the middle-class income than wages. the mexican permit immigrants. it is deeply divisive end of her from a discussion i am involved with for 20 plus years as a member of the obama economics team was trying to intervene in that space. so that is the part that i think is kind of damaging.
>> one other question outside your lan. >> regardless of whether wikileaks obtained those evidence documented from the mouths of russia or not, is that proper for news organizations to report on them versus catastrophe desire john podesta's private emails we should report on them. >> that's a hard question. let me see. i think it's really important to confirm that what you are seeing is what you really -- but they are telling you they are seeing. before people release that information, they need to make sure it is true. the fact is we are learning some important stuff that people didn't want to be publicized and i'm not sure that is obviously a bad thing. >> they've avoided saying the fair accurate documents. the clinton campaign hasn't
confirmed the e-mail says britain. they shouldn't be reported on. >> i can't speak to the clayton campaign because i have a polyp that. they should be reported until they really know what we're looking at. i have a real problem with things that have come out and get everybody wound up and turn out to be false. it is not that hard to do that sort of thing these days that that is definitely rubs me the wrong way. >> you-all didn't notify me there is a donald trump to eat 35 seconds ago. i thought a similar but i'm not going to talk about that. >> that is not news. >> the current administration. unemployment has come down. poverty has come down. with peter previously of economic growth in the importance of more robust growth to solving all the challenges come energy, entitlement reform, deficit reduction, health care in terms of trying to break the gridlock.
your estimates are that more palatable. what has gone wrong over the last eight years? stipulating you inherited a tough situation. it has gone wrong that we are stuck at 2% or. >> first of all, it's a great question and i will answer it. i may disagree with one sort of subtle part of that question that's very important to distinguish. in the age of income and wealth in wage inequality, with great imbalances and power in bargaining power, it is not a correct assumption to assume that if the economy grows quickly that the middle-class and the the poor will be better off. one of the characteristics of noninclusive growth is that too much of the gdp growth does an end run whether that's an economic growth for too many people in the middle-class is a spectator sport. you don't experience it yet as
you correctly pointed out, that is beginning to change in ways that are really important and economically in terms of economic policy, extremely germane to the debate we are having. the games that you reference, the fact that median household income grew 5% last year, 50% on middle class. by the way, this wasn't reported as much. the income of the 10th percentile or 8%. i work a lot on this issue of full employment, how it is a verb market were done for the benefit proportionally is precisely what i would rebate. when the economy begins to tighten up, this is not a rosy scenario. everybody is fine. everybody is far from fine.
a year or two of positive growth does not make up for decades of stagnation. don't get me wrong. but it is the very much predict both outcome of a tightening job market which delivers more outcome. i'm growth you have to really look at a couple things. economic growth is largely a function of what it is at a growth in the growth of the labor force. the growth of the labor force is following because of old people like me you are aging, retiring. one issue is a function of demographics baked in the cake. the fact productivity growth has slowed and that goes back free obama, the factor productivity growth has slowed is by far our most important economic problem. i have a set of ideas that i think would help, many of which are quite closely linked to hillary clinton's investment agenda. i will tell you what would hurt. it would deport 7 million working people. we already have a problem with the slow growth of the labor
force. people talking about marxian b. and you can impugn mark anyway you want. all he did was run transplant or a standard macroeconomic model and what he ended up with is a recession. the main reason he ended up with a recession is because he assumed trump is able to deport a significant chunk of the labor force which continues to say we want to do. that's terrible economic policy. >> 75% of the country thinks her on the wrong track. mentally from talking to people in the kidnap polling is some large amount of that is because 2% growth unevenly distributed even now people are not optimistic. the election to some extent on the democratic policies of the last eight years, is that there do ask.
isn't it fair to ask another democratic resident pursuing some different policies that a lot of continuity how we can expect hillary clinton to have growth rates more like 3% in 2%. >> it is a good question -- think that the constraints of the macroeconomy are such that when presidential candidates start saying i will get you three or 3.5, you should leave the room because there's nothing there. i haven't heard bill clinton say anything like that. what i have heard her say if the policies will ensure that more of the growth continues to go to middle and low-income people through things like increasing minimum wage, through debt-free college, through investments in being able to balance work. and most recently, making sure that the child tax credit reaches down to the very lowest poor people who are excluded from it now. this is your idea to expand the tax credit and how to start
taking up 1 dollar of earnings for 3000.45% rate right now at 15% rate. hillary clinton will get the economy from 2% to 3%. the answer is no president has the ability to do that in a way that would convince any reasonable economist. it just doesn't work that way. we don't understand well enough the factors in productivity growth. we do understand the demographic pressures. if you ask and hillary clinton policies increased the growth rate, the answer is yes. it's a matter of basis points. basis points or hundred of a percent. the main way that would occur is through investments in public is room for structure investment. >> more government spending. as far as i know she's not proposing any cuts in spending
that i know a beard is that correct? >> i don't -- there's none that i can think of. >> the reduction of spending. some increases on a variety of programs. they have some institutions. >> the key is that her tax an institution is a group of people. they take about 250,000. >> i think it's so important to solve a lot of the problems. while those policies that increase, there is no specific goal in mind that would increase very much. >> yeah, i don't hear hillary clinton saying i can get to three. >> you the tighter policies. he said radical policies people should be optimistic about the growth would go well. >> that's not what i said. it's short of a generic question. there's no set of policy
establishes beelzebub realistic as we can. i know that there is a lot of silly talk. peter is a friend and i agree with a lot of what he says on the trade deficit by the way. there's a lot of really ridiculous talk about the three, 3.5 during the primaries. somebody said for in somebody else at six. that is complete and that are not meant economically illiterate. what is true as hillary clinton's plan in my view can boost the productivity growth rate, which again is a good chunk of the equation. she can boost the productivity growth rate for investment in infrastructure and r&d which are critical and by the way there's bipartisan support. this is sent and that might interest some of the folks in the room. if you want something that could realistically happen, the answer is clinton's infrastructure
plan. let me say one other thing. not only can hillary clinton's plan boost the productivity side for investment in infrastructure, two areas i believe there's a strong untapped elasticity right now. but her work family balance, paid family medical leave can boost the labor supply side of the equation. trump would kill the labor side supply of the equation. if you listen to sandy, his plan is recession. so i do believe hillary clinton policies to let the growth rate. i'm not going to tell you it's going to get to 3.5% or 3% or whatever%. it will improve. >> a stock with more specificity but everybody talks about the guest speaker ryan penny president clinton. this will be tax reform in infrastructure.
maybe a repatriation one time. we must be in d.c. because her talking about repatriation at 9:30. >> you're in the room. with chuck schumer and paul ryan and they say put on the table for us a grand bargain that involves taxes whether individual or not in infrastructure. but with that look like? >> great question. i would say would be in infrastructure program. hillary clinton talks of a 275 billion program in roads and bridges and mass transit, in broad air and, in schools which i just love this idea that our public school in a serious investment often in energy-saving areas. in 25 billion to capitalize infrastructure could be leveraged numerous times. so how do you pray for it -- pay for it? >> some broad argument tax reform is likely to go anywhere
because of the resistance to tax increases that have been so pervasive and frankly this tax reform thing becomes kind of a unicorn for me. my big distraction because everybody means something different by. the corporate site which you alluded to is a hot knife is something everybody agrees upon and we really could perhaps find some compromise. a good place to start is with some kind of a repatriation that was attached to a reform of international corporate taxation. i've got aside a colleague of mine. this woman is like the expert in all the different flavors of
repatriation. you've got to read the latest paper on that if you're into this because it really goes through the details. the world's foremost scholar of different types of repatriation. if you do a tax holiday, that's a lousy idea and chuck schumer agrees that's a lousy idea. that is the idea you allow companies to repatriate earnings in some favorable rate and is purely voluntary and that's it. usually they wanted to be five. according to the scorekeepers, that's a big money loser because all it does is transduced corporations to do more and more deferral. so that leaves you with the compulsory repatriation. the best idea is a repatriation tied to some sort of international tax reform. i like president obama's idea which is the repatriate at a 14% rate. at the same time you plug in a 19% minimum rate. that's the best is not good fund
deep dives. enhancing infrastructure. >> some areas where you think you and iran agree on what needs to be done. >> one area we robustly agree on and i think it's great is expanding the earned income tax credit to reach childless adults. something paul ryan has talked about. i remember the campaign marco rubio talked about an expansion of the child tax credit that looks like what we've been talking about. paul ryan has talked about poverty and many of his ideas are orthogonal to my own good da da you sort of wanted job. that's implicit and i know that's wrong. one day we really agree upon is that these pro-refundable tax credits. expanding is an area we're in.
i'll bet you paul ryan. others may know i would think that this infrastructure i.t. would have some appeal that we know he wants to reform the corporate side of the code. i have pretty good friends -- i have good republican friends, some of whom say why are we doing infrastructure? these are business people. so this is the bipartisan thing. >> 50 mark questions, but i'm a student at the clock. jarrett, thank you very much. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> our last panel, our last discussion with fresh water is coming. going to be joined now by two folks who talk more about economics. former deputy director of the white house national economic
eakin who is president of the american action for them and former chief economist for the president's council of economic risers if you could both come up, please. >> thank you for coming. >> have a seat. let's start with you and just tommy what you thought about the conversation so far, areas where you agree, optimistic, pessimistic. >> i think i will pass on that one. not my area of expertise. they only heard part of the discussion so far, but i think i agreed with a lot of what jerry just said that i heard in terms of blood are some of the long-term drivers and policies that hold the most promise including expanding childless workers come in many whom are young adult in the labor force. >> a secretary clayton one, how would you answer it? should i be thinking about
economic puzzles that could win paul ryan support or should i be thinking of gainesville rejected traded to the american people and wear him down assuming he still speaker. >> i mean, i think there's going to be a compromise. if i were her, i think about what our good policies. paul brand appears to be someone who cares about good policy, too. they have different views on what strengthens economy the most by trying to find common ground and things that are a combination of what you believe will have the strongest impact on inclusive growth with what hewitt is probably what i would advise. >> or your supporter donald trump candidacy? your preferred outcome? >> john mccain. [laughter] i am still there. to me this is from a truly
policy point of view, to my eye, the democrat had given up on growth. there's really nothing in that it is going to genuinely affect long-term productivity growth and the things they need to know need to move from a 2% economy to the american economy that we deserve and can achieve. i find that very troubling. it's all a set of new entitlement programs with promises to pay for from taxing the rich and that's about it. >> the argument is some of the programs with this project to the d. and giving that --
>> novel not affect productivity. they make it a one-time bump in labor force participation at us. that's not going to affect long-term productivity growth. his policies are a hot mass and don't really add up in any coherent fashion. when you look at the u.s. economy right now, the most compelling feature is unlike the postwar period of 2007 in the standard of living doubled every 35 years in the american dream is visible to people, it is now on track to double every 75 years in the american dream is disappeared over the horizon and there's nothing that addresses that in any deep way. >> let's talk about the affordable care at. if you're comfortable voting front of everybody, you can close your eyes. raise your hand if you think it is on track to control health care costs. raise your hand. one in the back. i asked that question in almost every group i speak to him to both is actually about. the notion that controls costs. what has gone wrong but at least the perception of business people, academics, even people within the upon it and its duration is one of the two
primary goals that it has. >> if you look back to 2010 before it was an act did, in we actually have lower health care -- i wasn't sure -- i think it is naral progress. if you go back to 2010 we actually have lower health care spending every day projected from that time plus we have 20 million more people covered by health insurance. >> more of a political question, but why is it no one to think that except for you in a handful of people in the administration? responsiveness to it. so i think what is important or what are the real effects and so far it seems to me that we have had a very positive trend in
terms of controlling healthcare costs. yes, it would be better to control them even more but the effect of aca has apparently been very positive. >> as i understood it as being enacted, one way costs were going to be controlled by the payment advisory board. members have not been named for that. it does not exist. isn't that -- the fact that that's not there a problem of cost control? >> i don't think we have gotten to the point that that's supposed to go into effect yet but the cost control have come through payment reform in the medicare system, for example.
that's not exclusively the way to achieve costs control through the act. >> how would you score the affordable care act because now on track to do more for businesses and individuals and for government? >> it never was going to. there were two objectives. it was very expansion heavy, lots of check in medicaid, the changes to cover people and very light on genuine attempts to change the delivery system. the features that were supposed to be important and they've all been modest at best and largely failures. so that's not surprising to me because there really wasn't a genuine effort to control costs in the aca. >> i have to ask what you think of that answer. >> do you think healthcare costs have been better since 2010? >> it started to slowdown prior
to 2010 and so it's certainly not an aca-related phenomena. >> in part because of the recession? >> in part recession and other things. people cared about how much spending was going on. i think the sort of basic attitude in that area where people are worried about being at financial risks for big patient costs is real. i think we have seen some important transformation because they're not really driven by the aca in a way that, i think, we could have cemented those things. you look at premiums it's been sponsor market. gee, they are only going 3-4%. the places it touched are right
now disaster areas. the exchange are a mess. medicaid programs are uneven and never a great program. so i don't think it deserves any real credit in the pace of spending. >> so let's say secretary clinton is president and paul ryan speaker and schumer is majority and you two are negotiators of making changes in the affordable care act which would likely happen in the administration. where would be areas where you would look to on the cost side where you would look to say, here are way that is speaker ryan and a president clinton could agree, let's maybe make changes in the program. is there any common ground you two would say let's start doing the numbers on x and y, what would those be, anything? >> i'm not a healthcare expert. i'm a tax expert. i could not go into the details of that. i do think she's had compelling proposals to deal with the higher out of pocket costs. medicaid is also a issue, because of supreme court case there are some hold in coverage that we are not by the act but
that needs to be address so those are areas that i would look at. >> the reason i give the answer and the basic idea whether it's child care costs or out of pocket costs or healthcare costs, the strategy is get people to buy more of this stuff, that increases. >> she's going to have some say in it. >> i agree. she is going to want to keep exchanges from melting down further and they're in bad shape. you can do that, change the age bands to 3 to 1 and 5 to 1. minimize grace periods. some things you can do with margins to help prop them up and in exchange what the republicans would want is a real focus on medicare as the delivery system reform mechanism. it pays a lot of bills in this country. people practice for medicare some as other patients. if you drive a delivery system reform through medicare, you
have a real chance. medicare advantage are problem republicans want to focus on. use that as a vehicle to try out different coordinated care delivery systems across the country. medicare grassroots up and grassroots-up approach. they want reforms, she gets the expansions preserved. >> right. republicans as you know have been completely willing to raise any taxes over the last several years. a president clinton making a proposal on -- under domestic agenda involves as jared said what she says are fully paid for by raising certain taxes. if the house of representatives is still speaker ryan, won't raise any taxes. what happened to her domestic agenda? >> well, so i think there are a couple of possibilities here that i would be optimistic about, one is infrastructure coupled with business tax reform and there have been long-standing proposals to combine the two of those things. and including proposals by
former chairman that would couple revenue raise from business tax reform principally to pay for infrastructure. there are instances where republicans are voted for targeted tax increases in the context of finance and infrastructure, one would argue about whether the expiration of the high-income bush tax should be considered for or not raising taxes. right now the republican party appears to be somewhat in -- given the presidential campaign. [laughter] >> they can throw the house and senate, governor of massachusetts, governor of wisconsin. [laughter] >> there are lots of republicans in very stable positions but at will have oh controversy that this presidency has generated. there's question after the campaign if secretary clinton
wins what kind of republican parties the republican party wants to be and, you know, one question is would the republican party begin to think about immigration reform again. would they begin to think about how to attract female voters and paid leave and child care. perhaps they won't, perhaps they will. i think these are really open questions that if secretary clinton wins will require some soul search. >> do you accept the democratic that immigration reform, that that's good for the economy, do you accept that? >> absolutely. that's -- the fundamental fact is the native-born population in the u.s. does not have replacement fertility n. the absence of immigration, we are japan, we shrink as a nation and we get very old. the flip side of that, everything about our future is dictated by our immigration decisions. so immigration reform is a real opportunity to -- to set the economy on a path of the future
and i think republicans are very short-sided not to take that opportunity. >> i want to go back to gdp growth. jared seem today say that might raise growth but 3% is not realistic. a lot of republicans believe and some republican that is you have to get 3% growth. is that something hillary clinton should be thinking about or talking about or not a big area of emphasis in your her mind? >> i think hillary clinton is focused on accelerating growth and the economy and the estimates are that trump's proposals would revolt in a recession, result in significant lower growth because of immigration -- >> you think the proposal would never happen so scoring it that way is misleading? >> under trump? >> yeah. >> yeah, i would hope that it does not happen but we are sort of confronted with what each candidate is proposing. >> i know she's for higher
growth, but is it whether i'm going to get 3% growth or not, is that -- would that be the result of policies, is that an important result to get to or not? >> absolutely. we shouldn't strive just for growth per se and a lot of the investments that she's talk about whether it's in child care, whether it's the expansion of the child tax credit, whether it's in education, are things that there is extensive evidence lead to long-term improvements, if you look at something at the tax-credit expansions. similar expansions resulted in improvement, health outcomes, education outcomes, earning outcomes. drive growth long-term. >> so you worked for senator mccain and defense spending is obviously a huge part of the budget. where would you say the debate is within the republican party
on whether the rhetoric of, you know, president obama's military should be met with increase defense spending or not? >> i think there's a lot of agreement that it -- there should been increased spending. the only disagreement is willingness to increase the nondefense discretionary spending as part of that deal. the budgetary fact is that these large entitlement spending programs, medicare, medicaid, affordable care act and social security has been steadily crushing and pushing out of the budget the nondefense discretionary, that's national security, infrastructure, education, all of the things founders saw roles of government been pushed out. that's got to be undone. i think people recognize that. the trouble is to undo it you have to deal with the existing entitlement programs and if you look at the two presidentals, they are both saying, no, i'm not going to touch social security and medicare and
hillary clinton is saying expand these things. >> i don't here other leaders talking about cutting entitlement programs either. >> no, i don't think we have seen a serious discussion about this in a couple of years but the reality is that barack obama will leave budget that if left in autopilot and that 60% is interest of previous borrowing. no one has done -- promised to fix it, both trump and clinton have promised not to make it worse, that's it. >> if secretary clinton pulls you aside during a transition, president elect, so we have all the domestic policies out there, tax policy, spending policy, where would these lead me after my first term on the deficit? what would you tell her? what's your analysis of where would that leave the country? >> basically if you include her money that she is proposed to set aside for business tax
reform, finance infrastructure, she does not increase the deficit whereas trump would increase it by about $5.3 trillion. >> and it's not increasing the deficit a good enough goal or should she add just things to try to have reduction? >> we are going to have deficit reaction but thus far the efforts which have been significant have been heavily weighted towards spending. a lot is aging of the demographics. >> i have looked at policies and looked at deficit reduction, you know, i think it's important that i get some deficit reduction in my first term. i want to change my policies. what would you do to get reductions? >> we need to look at revenue
side. >> she said i want more deficit, raise taxes more than you're currently proposing it? >> i would consider it, yes. >> which ones she is not raising that you would want to raise under is that scenario? >> i think you could potentially go higher at the very top end. >> individual? >> individual? >> yes. >> how high would be fencible to go? >> i can't give you exact number but i can tell you there's a recent study in the journal and literature that finds that no -- they found no reasonable evidence or convincing evidence that raising the rates on high-income people will actually result in real economic behavioral effects. so there are changes, for example, in the timing of realization of income, but it's not clear that you actually generate a lot of distortion by raising taxes on more wealthy. >> could you actually raise meaningful money for deficit reduction? >> absolutely. >> and how high would you have to raise it?
>> we would have to sit down with a spreadsheet. >> you don't see a downside as you suggested? >> no, i think there's always a trade-off but at this point what we have done so far in deficit reduction has been heavily weighted on the spending side and we need to do more on revenue. >> most presidential candidates ran on boiler-plate antiobama notions repealing the affordable care act, they all had tax cuts, jeb bush a lot like donald trump's, marco rubio had some original ideas although they were criticized as being too activist. did you see in the context of the presidential nomination, boy, that should be in front and center of republican tax policy now? >> so i thought something jared mentioned about the income tax of first single earners.
that's important for people to focus on, you know, the house agenda targeted a new strategy toward poverty. i think that has to be at the center of the republican party going forward. the basic reality is that for three elections in a row now the economic message has fallen, mccain, romney and now trump. it's fallen on deaf ears. people are not interested in it. they have to wake up and think of this. it's focusing on the antipoverty, a genuinely important issue and something to worry about it. i like rubio because the tax plan meant something, it wasn't a collection of things. i want growth and families. it had a set of values embedded in it. i think that's really important. i'm a big fan of the house task force tax reform for the same reason. it's an emphasis on growth in the time we need better growth and i think they are going to have to think hard of the social safe net. the reality is this, the next president is going to have a recession.
i don't know what year, we don't know how bad, the odds are they will. they have to city about buying insurance against that recession. >> do you think that's inevitable? >> to date the structure of the economy a two-part economy, the household sector, 3% roughly in the business sector and everything else really not that good with the exception of those recent durable goods orders that's been the character for a while. that can't persist forever. either the business sector has to look at household sectors saying things are ok, let's higher more rapidly, spend more money on investment or the house is going to take a look at business sector and say, oh, that's really the future and they're going to cut back. i just don't see this kind of uneven economy growing for much -- stable period. >> president obama did inherit a very weak economy from president bush. you could turn the clock back of the obama administration, are there different choices he could
have made to see more robust growth over the eight years? >> i mean, it's tough with the congress that we've had. so there are certainly policies that would have increased growth even further, whether it's getting proposal for the childless worker enacted or stimulus initially in response to the recession, there's a whole bunch of education investments, child care investments that would stimulate the economy and promote growth in the long-term. actually going back to your prior question that even if you just adopted secretary clinton's proposals that are deficit neutral, they are expected and at least in my opinion stimulate growth. so you would end up reducing the debt in the long-term as a result of that. but the question is, you know, is there something more that president obama could have done with its congress and i'm not sure. i think he pushed really hard for some important priorities and got some of them enacted and some blocked by congress.
>> in the clinton proposal, it's instructed to look at evaluation. if you take out immigration reform. there's no growth there. all the jobs come from immigration reform. that's it. the median family income declines. it is not inclusive growth because of good market performance and underlying economics, only good because of the middle class. a big tax and transfer program. mark: how do you know that? douglas: read the report, look at the tables. mark: i assume you disagree with that? douglas: that is exactly what it says, creating 600,000 jobs over the next 83 years. does that. ok, that is fine. that is the policy. if you look at median family income on the tables, and declined. lily: i think one of the issues in general is macro economic
estimates. they cannot include all the different factors that will drive growth. a lot of them for example do not include the positive effects of getting more people to go to college, having a higher quality childcare. decreasing labor force participation -- douglas: i'm all for education reform, but 18 years -- lily: were the long-term deficits -- douglas: i am word about short-term, no longer -- mark: i do think everybody agrees whether tax reform happens or not, that will be a big part. both talking about major infrastructure spending, donald trump proposing more than her. what are the best practices we have learned from the stimulus bill? how to spend it most efficiently, so you're actually building things useful for society and are not wasteful? lily: again, i am more for tax than infrastructure, so i might
focus more on the aspect of how he will pay for this. and i think we have a business tax code that is broken. and we need to think about reforming both the international side and the domestic side.but right now , we have sort of the worst of both worlds, on both sides, distorting investments, encouraging money to stay offshore, when if we had a world life system, as some have proposed, we would limit the blackout effect. the structure, a trump mcconnell beale, what do you -- to make it maximally efficient? douglas: do not promise to quick. that is where the great promises.it should be verboten . do not overpromise how big a measure of gdp effect you will
get, because there is infrastructure that is very valuable. i can fix the roads, commute more easily, leave later, get home sooner.my life is better , but why do the office is unchanged.productivity is unchanged . don't overpromise on this thing. and require a genuine economic impact analysis before you give any state or locality the money. there is a lot of evidence like in the kansas city reason, they require this, they have some phenomenally productive infrastructure investments.chicago is required to do it , but not to award money. i will say no more. mark: thanks to you both. and thanks also to ken goldstein and navarro. thank you for coming to the peterson foundation, where we can talk a little bit about twitter and a little bit about policy. thank you all. have a great day. [applause]
announcer: coming up on c-span, first lady michelle obama campaigning for hillary clinton in manchester, new hampshire and donald trump speaking at a campaign rally in west palm beach florida. and another just to hear the economic proposals from presidential nominees. announcer: c-span washington journal's live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, jacob brody, chief political correspondent will discuss the split in the evangelical community over voting for donald trump. and senior political c.com willent for mi talk about millennial voters in 2016, and what issues are motivating them this election cycle. the shortest watch c-span washington journal friday morning. join the discussion.
♪ 2010, democratic senator russ feingold lost his seat to current republican incumbent ron johnson. they are again campaigning for the seat and will face each other tomorrow in wisconsin. live coverage begins at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. and later with senate minority leader harry reid's retirement, nevada has an open senate seat this year.republican congressman joe heck is running against a democrat catherine cortez. the candidates debate tomorrow, live on c-span at 10 p.m. eastern. >> initially, when i was trying to come up with my documentary for studentcam, i was little bit daunted because there are so many different elements i was trying to put into it. and a lot of information to try
to communicate in seven minutes. but then i conducted a step back and realize it really is just like a visual essay. and i have in writing essays all throughout high school, so it was something that became a little bit less daunting as i look at it from that perspective of just gathering information and incident writing of information, i am filming it. i would urge anyone thinking about making a piece for student cam to reach up to as many different people as they could, to get a lot of interviews, guesstimated from perspectives as you can. because there are experts that are so much more knowledgeable about the subject and you are, and as many of those people that you can get in the piece, the more credibility your piece will have. not just a high school student trying to solve this massive problem. it turns into you are contributing useful information by compiling all of this information. >> your message to washington
dc? tell us, what is the most urgent issue for the president and 2017?ss to address in our competition is open to all middle school or high school students grades six through 12, with $100,000 awarded in prices. students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a five minute documentary on the issue selected, include some c-span programming, and. also explore opposing acquaintance the cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 students, and the grand prize of $5,000 will go to the students or team with the best entry. the deadline is january 20, 2017. mark your calendars and help us spread the word to student film maker. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. announcer: first lady michelle obama campaign for hillary clinton in manchester, new hampshire and make remarks on