tv Tax Reform Panel Discussion CSPAN April 27, 2017 1:17am-2:04am EDT
thursday morning. join the discussion. >> thursday, u.s. pacific command commander, admiral harris is back on capitol hill, testifying about military strategy in the asian-pacific region, focusing on north korea. follow life coverage from the senate armed services committee at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. you can also watch on www.c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio app. u.s. federalel on tax policy. former house ways and means chair dave camp outlined recommendations for moving tax overhaul legislation through the house and senate. newspaper hosted this event. it is 40 minutes. >> we continue our discussion on tax reform. i would now like to call on to the stage former congressman dave camp, a senior policy advisor at
pricewaterhousecoopers and the former chairman of the house ways and means committee, and the center on budget and policy priority, president of the committee for responsible federal budget, and grover norquist, president and founder of the americans for tax reform. over to you. >> thanks. let's start with you. what was your reaction to the secretary's comments? were you heartened? we wrote a story about the possibility of transportation mixing with tax reform. >> a big step forward. a very important division. if you put infrastructure spending, any spending, inside lesss o tax reform, that is for infrastructure. it reduces what you can do. two separate it is helpful. -- to separate it is very helpful for >> as far as the
debt, it has been reported that the adjustment tax is not going to be one of the offsets. are you concerned about this being -- this blowing a hole in the nation's debt. >> thank you for asking the question about offsets and the debt. i am a here supporter of tax reform. we need tax reform as a way to grow the economy and increase competitiveness and lowering the tax rate is an important piece of that. there has been no talk of what the offsets are. this is on the giveaway side. but the purpose of tax reform is to grow the economy. is way you grow the economy to bring rates down. he also grow the economy by having an improved allocation of capital, which comes from broadening the base. we can pay for this by bringing rates down. that will help growth. the third thing that will help the growth is don't balloon our near record level of national
debt. if they are focusing on growth, and i think that is the purpose, you want a plan that is paid for. we have seen time and time again that tax reforms that are paid for grow the economy more than those that are not. what i do not want to see is this tax reform is going to be paid for by magic. garrett, as far as bipartisanship, do you see it in tax reform. >> perhaps, but this is just tax cuts. they should not be conflated with tax reform. my vision of tax reform is when we recognize that revenue neutrality, which is what i suggested, will not come anywhere close to that, is inadequately low. if you look at demographics alone, we are going to need more revenue, not less. if you think about our
challenges, whether they are environmental or geopolitical, we will need more revenue. what i call tax reform is not what secretary minutia and was describing -- secretary mnuchin is describing by a long shot. tax reforms should not be dis equalizing. it should not follow the mnuchin rule, where you don't see tax cuts for the wealthy. every single plan we have seen goes far in the other direction. this is not tax reform. this is regressive tax cuts that will exacerbate our fiscal challenges. >> dave camp, you have dealt with this issue. you hav ese scars to prove it. what advice would you give the trump administration? heard thiswhat we morning is absolutely critical. the administration is fully
engaged at the highest levels on this issue and they are coordinating as much as possible with the leadership that are interested in advocating for tax reform. as you go through this process, certainly with all the people, data, and resources the administration has, they can help to get through the ups and in thehat are process as big as this. it is natural they are trying to do it this year. i think it is welcome news for an opportunity for success. i did not have that kind of engagement from the administration, or frankly from congressional leadership at the time. i think this is a big game changer in terms of the chance of having it become a reality. >> do you see this being a big difference in how health care was handled? the illustration did not put forward its own plan. >> there have been a number of plans and ideas on tax reform of members of both parties over the last decade. there is a broad consensus that our tax code is broken and we
need to do something about it. p is not enoughd growth to absorb those young people trying to enter the workforce. there are common themes, and when you get into details it is much harder, but that is very different. the health care issue has been a polarizing issue for many, many years. tax, obviously there are disagreements in how to approach it, but there are ideas there that are not quite as partisan as in other areas of policy. >> health care, there has been that the freedom caucus is striking a deal with the administration and leadership. how important is it to good health care done first? >> extremely important and president trump has said that, as well as the congressional leadership. the reasoning for it is obamacare was 19 taxes with a stethoscope stapled on top of it. 19 taxes were $1 trillion over a
decade. if you are going to get to a progrowth policy, if you go at 3% a year for a decade instead of 2% you get $2.5 trillion more revenue coming in, it is a huge pay for. is much better than taking money out of the economy elsewhere. if you can take $1 trillion off the table to start, that is the $1 trillion from obamacare tax increases, which is matched by more than $1.2 trillion in spending over a decade that increases in the out years, that is paid for. that is a $1 trillion tax cut every decade, out into infinity, fully paid for, offset by spending cuts, not tax increases, but spending restraints. then, you move over and you are $1 trillion closer to your statue of what tax reforms would look like. so, that's why it's extremely important as a first step. if you skip that, it is a mess.
>> but the path to getting it done, if you are able to flip freedom caucus members, it could get to the house, but the senate will be difficult too, isn't it? >> this has been pretty negotiated with the senate early on. there is a section for stuff the senate wants in the bill. so, this has been worked with the senate and the governors as well. the obamacare repeal is also the reform of medicaid. while granting medicaid to the 50 states. having 50 states do what they did with welfare reform, you learn what works and what does not. with one-size-fits-all, you don't know what works and does not work in medicaid. it is a reform of medicaid. as well as a repeal/major reform of obamacare, plus a $1 trillion tax cut. when ryan and the president told the freedom caucus, go in a room
and come back when you can count to 218, that wasn't in porton, rather than having each one whisper into ryan or trump's ear, they got tired of that. locked outnot have of that room without the level of support they needed. >> speaking of the freedom caucus, there are a lot of members that want to -- they have debt built and want to cap the debt. do you think the president trump could change his mind? to you think it is possibly may be something he would do in the second term, if he wins? >> all indications are that he sticks to things he said during the campaign. he said he was not going to make changes to social security and medicare. the problem with those promises, along with the other promises he has put out, plus the existing fiscal situation, is the numbers do not add up.
the thing that is most likely to change his mind is if you go through the fsical situation we are at right now, the debt is at the highest level in the economy it has been since we came out of world war ii, before he does any policies, we are on track to add another $10 trillion to the debt over the decade. that will be his $10 trillion. that is something he was very critical of president obama for overseeing. he will own that. he now has a little policies on his list, two spending increases. you can't do that. you cannot cut taxes, increase spending, and take the most critical part of the budget to reform off the table. so, i think the really important thing here is, you are talking about sequencing between health care and tax reform. the very first step in this process has to be the budget proposal. the budget the administration put out dealt with 1/3 of the budget for one year. to me will come out with the full budget.
the question is, how will you have those numbers work together? what we know from republicans, in the house in particular from the past, they have been set on balancing the budget in 10 y ears. you cannot get the balance of you have big tax cuts and take off entitlements, without going of growth. the reason we won't have sustained 3% growth we should shoot for but we have a different labor market situation we have had in the past. there are no credible estimates of all those policies that could get us up to 3% in a sustained way. what i don't want to see is us plugging in am birs economic growth numbers that won't get us there. what i want to see is a whole comprehensive plan to grow the economy. that will include bringing our debt down and that is going to include entitlement reform which we can't walk away from. bob: congressman camp, how do you think tax reform should move through the house? you know the politics of the freedom caucus and difficulties that health care presented. how do you think they are going
to go about it? you mentioned the trump is onboard. leadership's onboard. which wasn't the case when you pursued tax reform. do you think this is going easier or harder than health care? congressman camp: i think it's very different than when i first got to congress which is there is a great deference to what the committees and what chairman, what leadership are trying to do. that's not the case now. it's going to have to be more transparent than people were used to years ago. and engaging member by member. you have to really involve the conference in a large, broad way. i met with many members individually when i was there. 30-plus hearings. there is a base of knowledge. an active legislative affairs team can be helpful on these issues.
there are a lot of new members as well. i think there has to be a real engagement. this is where actually having a very active white house legislative affairs team can be very helpful on these kinds of issues. all players on the field can make a big difference. very open, transparent, and i think trying to build that consensus, and i think it can be done. bob: do you see the path as usually the house is -- moves a bill along party lines but that perhaps the senate would be more bipartisan and then they would come in conference? orrin hatch, the finance committee chairman, wants to do some type of bipartisan bill. mitch mcconnell probably said it will have to be republican votes only. congressman camp: the house has been sort of taking that mode for quite a while. i still think it's important in the house to talk with democrats. i know chairman brady is doing that, to get their ideas and thoughts. they are seeing where the pressure points are. i would expect there will be discussions with democrats. i don't know whether the house democratic leadership will allow any democrats to vote for the bill. but at least they -- you want to at least have them a part of the process. i know they have begun some of
those discussions. jared: i think for anything to even approach bipartisanship, the tax cuts will have to move closer to something close to at least what i think democrats think of as tax reform. and that involves, again, revenue neutrality is probably too low a bar if you listen to some of what maya said on the fiscal accounts. any tax plan that makes the mnuchin rule will be at least should be unacceptable to democrats. i believe will be unacceptable to most. on growth i just have to amply maya's point because it's so essential. you heard the secretary. he's -- i have a lot of respect for the work he's trying to do. but you heard him say the tax cut will pay for itself. that is patently false. the tax cut won't pay for itself because no tax cut has ever come anywhere close to paying for itself.
that's not the same thing as saying the tax cuts can never have any growth impacts. but the growth impacts they have, which by the way are uncertain, i can show you evidence of tax cuts that were negative in terms of growth, they are de minimis, they are a couple tenths of a percent at best. and often not sustained. we should really inject a very firm dose of reality into this discussion and wholly discount what i call dynamic scoring abuse. the idea you can -- you called it magic before. the idea you can make up stories about how what i think is a very large regressive tax cut will pay for itself. let's agree we can stop pretending on that point. congressman camp: i think you can have dynamic scoring and growing the economy and getting above 2% as opposed to below is huge.
it is very important to do that. and what i think it really depends on how you put the package together. and you are obviously able to do tax reform in such a way that the economy grows. and frankly what americans are worried about is that the american dream is not for them. because we have had sort of flat growth and flat median income. if you can get tax policy that moves that forward -- do we have to stick with the static score? jared: to pay for itself. can a tax cut pay for itself? congressman camp: depends how you jared: it can? congressman camp: depends how you approach it. i think you can get tax policy jared: 2003 tax cut was supposed to drop taxes down to 12.9 trillion over the next five years instead went up to 13.3. it raised money from what they
said it was going to cost. we cut taxes and the government had more money over that period than they projected without the tax cut. bob: that's the one tax cut that we had recently. most recently tax cut we had and it completely paid for itself. the idea it never happens is silly. if you look at the reagan years we went from 2% growth for 4% growth for quite some period of time. that was a function of the spending. the revenue went up. you just said revenue then shifted jared: tax cuts do not pay for themselves. congressman camp: if you can also use it for policy issues that maybe democrats might care about or both parties care about, like infrastructure or other kinds of spending. it doesn't have to necessarily be limited to tax policy. maya: i love a good fight about dynamic scoring. dynamic scoring clearly has real merit in terms there are policies that have more effects
on growth than others. it's useful to making sure -- bob: what do you think potential growth is? maya: what will grow the economy. it will not find the tax cuts will pay for themselves. tax reform will increase growth by -- will pay for a fraction. maybe 20% of a tax cut. it will increase it by percentage points not decimals of percentage points not full percentage points. you want to use dynamic scoring to guide us toward pro-growth policies. just showing that the economy did one thing at the same time you had tax cuts, a correlation is not some kind of academic model that shows they pay for themselves. they don't. grover: first of all, 2003, tax cut what people said was going to happen, what did, on revenue. your earlier question was on bipartisanship. when clinton raised taxes it was just with democrats, house and senate. when obama raised taxes it was democrats, house and senate. when the republicans are now looking to reduce taxes, it's
very understandable, the modern democratic party, there is no member of the house and senate that won't vote for a tax increase and you can't find anyone that will vote for net tax cut. you heard the explanation people on the left don't want tax reduction they want shifting around but not reduction. on the republican side there's no republican who won't vote for a tax cut and they can't find one since 1990 when bush found some who were willing to vote for a tax increase. that has largely ended up. so -- of all the issues before the country, taxes are the one that is most divide on a partisan basis. we're not a country where the democrats live south of the mason-dixon line and the republicans live north.
we're now on two sides of the tax fight and so looking for devotes for the tax full is a fool's errant. we should always be open to that. i'm in favor of getting all the votes possible for the largest tax cut. i would love to have democrat votes for that. i don't any. bob: not even the democrats up for re-election? grover: no the pressure is on them. it is conceivable one or two. if you -- could you get one or two. to get to 60. after you have already got the votes, could you see one or two might vote that way. i tend to think the pressure's from the left are so strong that
that won't happen. maya: on bipartisanship, it is congressman camp is right, that dynamic scoring can show you where the growth is on the tax side and the spending side. there is so much talk about could you pray bring together tax reform which will grow the economy and infrastructure, which will grow the economy? bob: mnuchin said no. maya: there are a lot of different players and ideas. there is potential that something like that will come together. that could be pro-growth but i'm going to go back to the point if it's paid for. because the devil's bargain here is unpaid for tax reform with unpaid for infrastructure, we can increase the debt by twice as much instead of going back to alt findings that tax reform and infrastructure spending grow the economy more when they are paid for. i think, grover things the biggest fight in the country is between taxes. i think it's people who are willing to make hard choices and people who are willing -- who want to sell you can have something for nothing. bob: as far as the state of the democratic party, a devastating election for democrats in november. why would the democrats want to
give president trump any type of victory? especially when we're having special elections, already talk of the mid terms. where do you see -- or do you think that president trump has been reaching out to them so the tone has been set? jared: i think the problem for democrats is the gap between donald trump's rhetoric in the campaign and the extent to which he tried to appeal are very successfully appeal to working class people who have been left behind and the policies that he's been espousing that we heard about on the stage today is huge and growing. i find it very, very challenging other than a couple of photo-ops, to point to a trump policy that says this is going to help the working class. i really don't believe grover's democrat republican split. i think the split is more one between those for whom the economy has worked extremely well over the past few decades, and those who -- and the second group of the majority for whom it hasn't. so whether you are a d or r or whether you live in a blue or red state, a tax cut that delivers half of its benefits to the top 1% just looks completely wrong to you in the spirit of both what's going on in the real economy and what the president ran on. bob: congressman camp, what is something that you think the administration should be watching that they may not be thinking of on tax reform? this is already -- this has already triggered a massive fight on the border adjustment tax because everyone has a vested interested in the tax code. is that the biggest obstacle?
overcoming lobbying interests? congressman camp: i think the biggest obstacle right now is keeping inertia and momentum going forward. eventually having a plan that -- piece of legislation that is presented probably initially in the house and continue to support the work that's going on in the senate on tax reform. i think keeping that sort of moving forward right now is probably the biggest challenge. look, there are common themes here that i think some members of both parties agree with. and particularly on the international side. finding some way to bring the dollars that are trapped overseas back to be invested here i think is something that some democrats have expressed
support for. and there are some areas that you might be able to get some democrat support for in the process at some point. then it becomes a bipartisan effort. i think what you do want to try to avoid is having a repeat of the affordable care act. where the other side tries to undo it the minute they get into power. i have been in the majority twice and the minority twice. i know that it doesn't always stay one way. you want to try to bring a couple people along at a minimum if you can. grover: that wouldn't protect lower taxes. it took the democrats all of two years to begin to undo the tax reform act of 1986. that was four years later. and many d's had voted for the revenue neutral tax reform package. so their desire for higher taxes is unending. it's not -- some democrats voted to cut taxes because they are one of the eight guys who think they are going to lose their senate race in two years and may well. that doesn't change the fact that the rest of them are addicted to having more and more taxes. the challenge is this is the divide between the parties. it's the central divide between the parties. democrats keep asking for tax
increases. the teenage boys like a prom date, they ask for the same thing repeatedly in different ways. our job is to keep saying no. and stick with no. and not ever to say yes because it undoes the previous noes. jared: let me say i missed dave camp and wish -- i miss him a little less today. it's not because i agreed with everything he wrote down. but his work was always serious and much deeper than anything i have seen since. but the problem with the way i think you tee this up is it's d's against r's. teenage boys against whomever. i'm trying to bring facts to the table here. the percent of people over 65 over the next 20 years, this is baked in the cake, is going to grow from 15% to 21%.
that's demographics. that's not teenage boys at a prom. that's reality. so the american people in surveys consistently tell us that they want us to protect social security and medicare for them and that's the reality. now, people have ideas, i know maya has some, that say that's unsustainable and have to make changes. but that's the argument. it's not the democrats want to raise taxes because we're crazy about taxes. it's democrats look out at the challenges we face simply -- that bubble does go through the system and comes down later. so those costs also not always be on the present. but they are costs that we face. to deny that is to put the debate in a nonreality where it's been stuck for as long as you have been here. grover: that would make sense to cut the first thing the democrats did when they won the house, senate, and presidency in 2008 was to take $800 billion and throw it up in the air.
not to reform entitles. not to fully fund entitlements. but jared: don't know what you're talking about. grover: there was an $800 billion stimulus. jared: that was an effective piece of work. grover: the reason they want to raise taxes. jared: by 2010 -- by 2010 it was contributing less than half the level of the deficit. congressman camp: i never felt tax reform or h.r. 1 would solve all our problems. started working on this when we dropped into the great recession and revenues to the government fell dramatically. i always felt that tax reform
was one tool in the toolbox that could help get our economy growing again. but you're not going to solve all of the long-term fiscal obligations and problems we're facing with just simply tax reform in and of itself. it is, i think, an important thing that we should be talking about and trying to bring consensus on trying to move forward. our process doesn't work without some consensus. you're going to have to have tradeoffs. even within the party. because some people may have an r after their name but that's not necessarily their views on policy matters. bob: on the tax reform, as far
as it being paid for, do you see that a good amount of conservatives, if it's not paid for, and would blow a hole in the nation's debt problem, that they would vote no? even on a tax cut bill? maya: i think they are probably struggling with that right now. that's why i think a comprehensive budget is critical. what they need to see is ok i have been saying i want to balance the budget in 10 years, some cases four years. now we're talking about a tax cut that i thought would be $2 trillion but it's growing by the hour. we're talking about well above $5 trillion my back of the envelope estimate so far and creeping up. just to bat budget in 10 years before this tax cut would require $8 trillion in savings. it's really hard to find $8 trillion in savings in a 10-year window. if you want to add the need to also offset a $5 trillion tax cut, anybody who cares about
getting to balance is in a real corner. i don't think we actually have to balance the budget in 10 years. i think we have to get the debt down so it's not growing faster than the economy. but any reasonable fiscal goal is going to be just exploded if they try to put tax cuts in there. i think they have to go through kind of the overall tradeoff to figure this question out of what they are going to do. i do think it comes back to entitlement reform. your question to me. that has been brought up again. but throughout the campaign the president when he was running kept saying he was going to grow the economy by tremendous growth rates which aren't achievable. though growth is an important goal. and take that growth and use it to deal with our fiscal challenges. one to your point exactly, we cannot fix this problem with tax reform alone. that's only one piece of growing the economy. but two, if we use economic growth to pay for tax reform, already i would say those are magical numbers, you can't double count them and also use them to fix the fiscal situation. one of the promises from the trump is wire going to grow the economy to deal with the deficit and debt. you can't backtrack and say, oops, we're going to use that growth to pay for everything we want along the way. for a growth plan to help with the fiscal challenges, you want to pay for your new initiatives, keep things on the table, and try to get the debt at least not growing as quickly. to get to balance. to your question anybody who struggles between fiscally responsible and tax cuts is going to need to put having a plan to deal with the debt first. grover: spending and taxes are not two different project lens. the reason my group americans for tax reform does the no tax increase pledge is that until
you get a politician to promise that they'll never raise taxes, we'll do many things, we won't raise taxes, only then are they ever willing to think about reforming government. that's why when tax increases are on the table, they don't reform government. they spend the money. and when people say we have these crises with entitlements or things aren't working, the politician says i'll raise taxes to pay for all the stuff we have been doing and more stuff. but when you say we're not raising taxes, then and only then the politicians begin to govern. and the decision is do you say we're going to govern? we're not going to raise taxes, we're going govern, make decision, not do things that don't work anymore, take things that are always stupid and destructive and if we're going to do something in addition we're going to find less spending somewhere else.
tax -- saying no to tax increases is step one to reforming government. elected officials, if they can raise taxes, avoid government. maya: i'm not a big fan of pledges, why wouldn't you have a pledge that said -- if you are against spending increases, why not have a pledge that says say no to spending increases? grover: thought about it. the question is how do you do it? maya: don't pay for what we spend. grover: you can't say i won't vote for spending - jared: pledges are really dumb. you shouldn't have pledges. the difference between, i think, grover, what grover is espousing, much more thoughtful approach to what we're talking about here, is that you can't say cutting taxes is good, raising taxes is bad. you can't say raising taxes is good and cutting taxes is bad. it's very dynamic. there is a time for both. if you look at the spending side of the equation where all of the
spending cuts have come from, i object to this motion of -- notion of talking about spending as if it's in thing up there in the sky that's divorced from what we're spending on. you have to get down to cases. if you look where we cut spending most it's on the discretionary side of the budget. particularly on the nondefense discretionary side. and that includes training of workers. that's essential for helping folks who have been left behind. that includes research. that includes funding the i.r.s. and s.s.a. and social security administration's functions, people say are very important to them. it's childcare. it's a set of opportunity programs for low-income people that means a ton to them and in my view helps break down some of the opportunity barriers of people not only are struggling with these days but voted for trump to help them with. and my problem is that he's not doing any of the above.
so let's get down to cases. let's not talk about this up in the stratosphere. grover: how would you deal with the nation's debt problem approaching $20 trillion? would you just keep doing clean debt hikes? do you increase taxes? what is the solution? or is it growth? jared: i'm with maya on the growth thing. i don't do magic growth numbers. i think that the -- in order to raise the revenues we need to both stabilize and bring down the debt, we're going to have to raise more revenue. i have a piece in the american prospect that takes you through how to do that. a lot has to do with closing loopholes which i think some of the things that secretary mnuchin was leaning into to and key to the rule. closing loopholes. capping tax expenditures for folks above a certain level. equalizing rates of taxes on labor. nonlabor income. those kinds of ideas. maya: just to put that thought
in perspective. we lose $1.6 trillion per year in tax expenditures. if we went through the exercise instead of saying -- grover: we? the american people or government? maya: the government. grover: we is a different thing. maya: then we have to make up for it. we the taxpayers have to make up for it. grover: or we have to reduce spending. maya: we the citizens -- maya: or we reduce spending. maya: i am a huge supporter of reducing spending. grover: they don't all vote on that stuff. everybody votes yes or no on a tax increase. you -- the reason why the democrats -- maya: the lawmakers do on those laws. they are able to change entitlements. grover: you write the pledge that could hold and we'll look at it. we have looked at this for 20 years.
maya: take the pronoun, the government loses $1.6 trillion from tax breaks per year. tax expenditures. most on the individual side. some on the corporate side. i think the exercise of looking through which of those are we able to get rid of and base broadening and bringing down the rates by that much would be a really good way to do the tradeoffs. the bill that dave camp put forward was impressive because it went through a lot of these exercises how you would broaden the base the best way. again, that helps grow the economy. getting rid of a lot of those tax breaks and putting them into lower rates. that is a very strong plan for growing the economy through tax reform. congressman camp: even under dynamic scoring are you looking at all the provisions in the tax code. the reason i -- both aesthetic and dynamic scores, no tax bill had been dynamically scored. we don't want to try to get as close to a real world analysis of what the policies we may be adopting will do. i do think it has a useful life there. but it's going to be incredibly challenging obviously because
the parties are in such different places on these issues. i do think -- i'm still optimistic that the desire to make sure that the future growth is here in the united states, that our corporate headquarters remain in the united states, that people have a shot at upward mobility which is what growth and jobs and higher incomes do, and i think that is what you can -- you can get those metrics out of dynamic scoring which help make the case for the policies that you're trying -- jared: let me say two things about dynamic scoring. when dave camp's tax plan came out, there was a ton to admire in that plan, the j.c.t. gave us a dynamic score. they did the right thing, they
gave six different version what is they thought it would do. those versions led to higher g.d.p. growth in 10 years, i think it was higher level of g.d.p. in 10 years between .1% and 1.6%. between nothing and a moderate amount. the folks who were trying to sell dave camp's plan, parts of it which i admired, many parts, they chose the 1.6. this is a cherry picking opportunity. the tax policy certainty evaluated trump's tax plan as it was most -- most recent revised version. and they told us it would cost $6.2 trillion in lost revenues over 10 years. then they did a number of dynamic scores. the cost fell from $6.2 trillion to $6 trillion. so that's how much they found that tax cut would pay for themselves using state-of-the-art methodology. i'm not against dynamic scoring. i'm against cherry picking and dynamic scoring abuse. congressman camp: we were plowing new ground there. they did give ranges. that was expected. they said that revenue to the government would be between $50 billion and $800 billion. jared: very broad range.
congressman camp: advocating for the bill talked about $800 billion in pro-growth. now it's been refined. they are required to give a dollar number. there won't be ranges anymore. part of this process is evolving the macroeconomic modeling. i would also say, many of the outside groups and think tanks and analysis that looked at the bill actually, gave it more generous growth numbers in the joint committee on taxation. do i think it will be a more refined number. you got to start somewhere. it was the first time that was done. i do think we'll have a bert analysis. why not welcome that as opposed to an analysis that is static that assumes no matter what you do the economy doesn't grow.
that as investment goes up, labor goes down. if labor goes up investment goes down. this i think ultimately will be a helpful tool for policymakers going forward. grover: what we heard we can't have 4% growth any more. you may be old enough to remember at the end of four years of jimmy carter the democratic party on the left said limits to growth. we can't ever grow again. we have run out of oil. and at the end of the obama administration with 2% growth under their belt for all that time, worst recovery in modern history, they said we can't have growth anymore, everybody's too old. the excuses always come at the end of a tax and spend administration that we can't have growth. when you change that policy you can get growth. we got growth when we didn't let our friend clinton spend the money he wanted to spend in the last six years. we actually got a balanced budget because he wasn't allowed to spend what he wanted to and cut the capital gains. it started jared: because republicans got in the mix? grover: it was a bipartisan effort to stop him from spending. his budget plans were $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. what happened was he wasn't
allowed to do the spending and we cut the capital gains tax over his objections. jared: thank you for your help. maya: things are different now and we do dramatically need a real plan to grow the economy because the labor market is not going to be nearly as big contributor to growth as it has been because baby boomers are moving into retirement. that means we need as comprehensive a plan to come up with. tax reform should be a part of that. i think what i have heard out of the secretary of treasury has been very encouraging. i agree with deregulation. i agree with looking at how we're spending money so it goes to more public investment things that also help grow the economy. changing how resources are spent. and a key part underlying all that is not growing our debt. because when you look at these plans, if the plan grows the debt, that brings down your growth. so in order to do this you also need to offset the cost. because the labor market challenges we have, this is not the 90's or 80's in terms of what we're going to be able to achieve, we need to do everything we can to grow the economy. jared: i have a plat that i will put on my blog later today in honor of maya. it shows the g.d.p. plotted against g.d.p. per capita growth since 1792. those are numbers from richard
cogan. it is a random scatter plot. unfortunately for your rep there, there is no systematic relationship between debt and growth. that doesn't mean the debt can grow out of control. i'm with you on that point. but i would be careful to at least empirical try to tie it to -- maya: was the debt at these levels at any other point other than world war ii? we're about to go to unprecedented territory. jared: no. that's true the debt is highly elevated -- look, when the economy -- maya: i'm going to put a scatter plot on my nonexistent blog, too. [laughter] jared: when the economy moves towards full employment as it is now, you want your debt to g.d.p. ratio come down.
bob: we have to leave it there. this listless panel we have had here. [laughter] bob: i'll hand it over. >> thank you so much bob and to our panelists. this brings us to the end of the program. on behalf of the hill and american bankers association. if you missed any portion of the program it will be on the hill.com later today. have great rest of your day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> spend washington journal live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you to the coming up thursday morning, andy harris, maryland republican congressman and member of the house freedom caucus discusses health care and government funding. new jersey democratic
congresswoman bonnie watson coleman talks about the increase of immigration arrests. brenda loads and peter maclachlan of the national association of counties will discuss potential budget cuts. be sure to watch washington journal, live at 7:00 p.m. eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. >> thursday, u.s. pacific command commander is back on capitol hill testifying about military strategy in the asia-pacific region focusing on north korea. follow live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3 you can also watch at c-span.org and listen on the c-span radio app. >> sunday on cue and day, the house of truth, a washington political salon in the foundations of american liberalism.
we talk about a group of intellectuals. they met regularly in the early 1900s to debate politics and the future. >> everybody associated with this house, race wasn't a sailing issue for them. they can about the rights of workers and it took oliver wendell holmes junior some of his opinions, including a 1923 case which found for the first time that the mob dominated criminal trials of southern blacks violated the due process. that is the first time the supreme court struck down a state criminal conviction under the due process clause. that was a huge moment in putting fair criminal trials on the agenda and linking the idea of fair criminal trials with race. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. secretaryd security
john kelly and the acting director for u.s. immigration and customs enforcement announced the opening of victims of immigration crime engagement office. the office was created in response to president trump executive order enhancing public safety in the interior of the united states and would assist victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. tom: good morning. i am the active director for immigration customs enforcement. i have been enforcing immigration laws for 30 years. today is a good day.