tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 4, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EST
president obama met with 10 people who have benefited from the health care law. here is what he had to say. >> why is it that this would be at the top of their agenda? making sure that folks who don't have health care are able to get it. it was maybe possible before it was implemented and now it is being implemented and people are being covered just as anticipated. the premiums on average are less than $100 when you take into account the tax credit. so it is affordable or the people that it was designed to help. health care inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 years.
and it's costing less than the original projection. and so the notion that we would have politics with this approach who are out there working hard every day trying to make ends meet and that is a message that i want to use than directly today. reporter: >> david cameron defending the decision to fly flags at half staff following the death of king abdullah. saying that information provided by the gulf states has saved his lives. live coverage begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2.
>> defense secretary nominee ashton carter will testify the senate armed services committee tomorrow for a confirmation hearing. he previously served as deputy defense secretary and this would replace chuck hagel. we'll have live coverage at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> congressman labrador joined us to talk about immigration. this is 40 minutes. >> we are joined by congressman labrador, the republican from idaho. congressman for those that are just learning about the freedom caucus what is going on? >> we have a group that decided that we needed to have a more nimble group that we can set an
agenda that we can talk about the american people and we have a concern that both parties come to washington dc claiming that they are working for the little people do when they get here what they do is work for special interests and work for people that give more money to their campaigns and what we want to do is represent the people back home. we want to let the people know that we believe in things and we understand the frustrations that they have and we are just as frustrated and we want to push that agenda forward. >> we realize that this has grown too large, but they still have a mission. in the last two years they have become more of a debating society where people go in and they talk of the issues but they
don't really push leadership for more conservative or freedom legislation. so that is what we want to do is make sure that we are the voice for countless american were frustrated with washington dc and every time we go back home, there's no one who's really excited about what is happening here. and it doesn't matter what party they belong to whether they are independents republicans, libertarians, democrats, they are frustrated because they don't think the people are listening to them. >> is the time you have anything to do with the chairman of texas? >> unnecessarily several us were talking about this for the last two years, which obviously he was not the chairman for a time.
[inaudible] >> the 4 trillion-dollar budget, how does this feel about the president's budget? >> we had our meeting last night. we are going to have this budget task force and the freedom caucus. we have some people that are experts that will be getting together, with the initial impression that is more. and the american people want less funding and less government and less regulation and when he did this state of the income he took credit for the state of the economy and i admit that there has been an improvement in the economy, but what he fails to tell the american people is that
this improved over the last four years that we took over the house of representatives and we did is we stopped this and he has a budget that goes on without ever balancing. he grows taxes, spending, and it's incredible and people need to understand that those are the things that bring down an economy. >> [inaudible] please give us a call at the numbers, we will get them and we will talk about the increases of defense spending, this is one area that you could be okay with, increases over the sequestration that his art in place. >> i personally would not. and i feel like this is not
something that i voted for [inaudible] this is something that we tried to bring to balance what we are doing in washington dc. so i would not be for getting rid of sikh duration unless you are replacing it with entitlement reform and replacing it with something else. so what happens is you have both parties, the republican party had this and the democratic party has his pick and they both agree to not tax each other's sacred cows, and that is why we have the kind of spending that we have. we have the kind of deficit and the kind of spending that we do here in washington dc. >> there were increases in some spending.
[inaudible] so besides the keystone pipeline, can you tell me what other deal would be and can you help me if we can pull it up and we can all understand what will be. >> guest: immigration keystone. okay, so first and i actually agree with the collar, i don't think that there should be a difference between the two. and i think that we have an immigration system that works. and i guess this is something that could change at some point. so it doesn't mean that we need to change the policy for haitians but i think that we need to treat the haitians and
cubans the same. the second question was? >> host: what other bills besides the keystone pipeline. >> guest: yes, we all agree and i think every member agrees that the keystone pipeline is a good idea. but it seems like it has to come the policy of the republican party. and that serves one component and also we have elevated the keystone pipeline to add an energy policy and we need to do much more than that. we need to look at all of the different energy sources that we have and make sure that we are not doing anything just for special interests that it is something for the american people and the american people are demanding this. it is a first step and something that the senate has done but it is not the end all and the be all and i think sometimes -- and washington dc does such a great
job of making this larger than it should be. but it shouldn't be the only energy policy that we have. >> host: conrad is waiting on the independence line. please go ahead. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> guest: yes, i can. >> caller: the reason this did get better is because six years ago he passed a stimulus package to get shovel ready projects knowing and a few of them did get going and then it has been nothing but a hostile towards them. and so for the handicap for him to persevere that is something to be proud of [inaudible]
>> host: do you consider yourself a democrat? >> caller: i consider myself to the left, i am an independent who leads towards the left. but the fact of the matter is that this president in spite of having a very hostile congress has managed to get quite a few things past. >> guest: that is when republicans took over two years ago and in fact there was a study that just came out last week and the reason we had so many jobs last year was because we stop the president's agenda. people like yourself were complaining that we were not going to spend on unemployment benefits.
and that was something that was good for the economy which is something that we can talk about. by stopping the president's agenda, we actually improve the economy and we saw people finding jobs and more people benefiting from the benefits of being an american. so i'm very proud of the work that we have been doing as republicans. sometimes there is a belief that more government actually gives people more opportunity and that is where we are at right now. >> caller: good morning, i assume you are a lawyer because you are in the house. which means you are not an
economist. [inaudible] when the economy was going good there was a socialistic program that brought up the lower class into middle class. you can sit in a business that has state-of-the-art if nobody comes then to buy, the business fails. so why do you keep harping on the fact that tax breaks are going to bring jobs when they don't. saying that the taxes are so high at 39%, nobody in the top bracket pays that much. >> guest: i think that we need to get rid of the loopholes. there are way too many loopholes
in the tax code that benefit only those at risk. so we have some companies, corporations here in the united states that are making billions of dollars and i think that that is fundamentally unfair. and it doesn't matter if you are a small mom-and-pop shop back in idaho, you should be paying the same taxes, you shouldn't have extra loopholes in the tax code if you're rich. i want to use the money that comes from getting rid of those loopholes to reduce all-americans tax. i want to make sure that everyone has a lower tax rate. democrats want to increase spending and i disagree with that. i think that we are spending enough in washington dc and i
don't think that we have a problem with her spending. and i don't want special interest groups. >> host: third term member from the district of idaho, before that, establish law practice and holds a law degree from the university of washington talking for the next half-hour taking your calls and questions, kevin is up next. kevin is at on a line for republicans. >> good morning. i will tell you when we started off talking about a politician supporting positions of the donors contribute to her music to my ears the billionaires are
really determining the direction of the country. i'm a reliable republican, my family is among most of my friends to log. >> caller: i think one of the things at you talked about was the presidents respect to immigration and i don't believe he has the constitutional right to legalize 4 million people. in any event the senate immigration bill that would have doubled legal immigration, legalized all of the illegals and i think congressman the
labor of participation rate has been so low we have so many people earlier talking about this, going on disability i don't know whether you're aware, but technology is reducing the jobs and the number of jobs that are available and i have seen estimates from oxford university and others from el. and many of the current jobs are in jeopardy over several years. >> you are right, a lot of people over the republican party because they just don't like the democratic party and that is why we have talked about this. i keep telling my friends here on capitol hill that they need to understand they are just less excited about democrats.
and so i agree with you there. i opposed the senate immigration bill and i think that they put the cart before the horse. they put the 12 million people here ahead of a good and modern immigration system and i think that we have a president who is not enforcing the law we need to make sure that we have an enforcement system that is working and we need to make sure that we have border security that is adequate for the 21st century. once you do that, then the economy will start growing and once we start the inflow of illegal immigration, we can talk about what we need to do with legal immigration. we can talk about what guestworker programs we need for the 21st century. but we need to have an immigration system that is fair to the american people.
and it shouldn't be fair to them, then we can discuss what happens with the people that are here. >> host: we have a debate playing out that is wrapped up in this immigration debate. how is that going to play out? >> it's going to be a difficult fight and we need to show the american people that we are willing to put them first. they want to put the security of the nation at this risk because they want to grant 5 million even and like they just said, we have some problems here with employment and we have worker participation numbers that are at the lowest level that we have. saying that they are willing to shut down the government if we don't give them the ability to
provide people with guestworker status in a way that is legal. he went around congress. can you imagine if a republican president would've done the same thing with the estate tax? if they would have said i don't like the estate tax and so i'm going to tell the american people back. and if you haven't paid them i'm going to give you amnesty and a free ride. can you imagine what the american people would have said about that? somehow it is okay for the president to say that about immigration. >> host: recently on the "washington journal" we had the president and the tea party patriot and she responded to a question about whether there is one republican party in this country and here's a bit of what she had to say.
>> we hold both parties accountable personally i used to be a republican and now i just consider them americans who want to have more personal freedom and more economic freedom. >> the idea that these types of groups for means of fundraising fund-raising, is that a fair statement? >> the tea party movement started because we were so concerned about our government. government spending out of control levels $18 trillion in dead and we want to see congress do something about that. we were concerned about the data in the spending specifically about this stuff.
and so our causes donate to us and we can amplify the voices and hold congress accountable. >> the problem is that everybody goes back home and they campaign on the republican platforms they campaign on the fact that they are going to try to balance the budget would bring down the 18 trillion-dollar bid. and they tried to make excuses for fighting hard on the principles that they campaign
upon. this is why we created a spirit we want to show the american people that there are a group of republicans that believes in the platform and keeping the promises that make our constituents. sometimes i hear the media say this and they forget. the tea party started is that you have george w. bush in the white house and then you have a republican majority that was not keeping the promises that they were making american people. and they were so frustrated that the one party they thought would stand for something that is why they started the tea party. so that is why we are starting a freedom caucus and we are telling the american people and constituents that we believe in what you believe in.
>> host: nine members expected to get up to expectations. >> guest: we have nine founding members, but over 30 members total. >> host: hummus and labrador he will be with us for the next 20 minutes or so. >> [inaudible] let me get to another point here, americans have to realize that we need to invest in america. all this money that we are spending on defense -- the defense funds have to be getting rich. we are not at war right now and we should always be ready for anything that could happen. and so we need to invest in the american people, the american children that need education,
what we are doing [inaudible] >> host: congressman? >> guest: i disagree with the for first inning, i think the evidence is pretty clear that the economy went down and if he wants to look it up he can find it. >> host: part of the budget obama submitted yesterday he is looking or $500 billion over the next six years in infrastructure reinvestment and public works projects. where do you stand on that. >> i have not looked at all the details. there are some things that we can invest upon but we also need transportation. i just met with the secretary of transportation in the state of idaho, why is it that we are spending so much money on non-transportation needs? those are things that we need to look at.
he is right we need to look at this. and we do need to look at the war policy in a lot of these things, we have been in a prolonged war over 12 years. and we need to figure out what exactly our mission is to know which is one of the reasons the republicans have been leery going into other things because the money we are spending and what we are losing, the people are sacrificing for their freedom and security of this nation and we need to be with reconsidering our foreign policy and some of the things that we are doing. so i don't necessarily disagree with the statement and i don't want to be here just to make contractors more money to make but to make sure that the economy and the american people feel that they are getting value and that we are listening to them. and i'm here to make sure that no one special interest get more
money. >> host: we have another caller. good morning. >> caller: good morning. listening to obama and the democrats, they tried to ask back and act like they treated president bush greatly. obama has spent more money with his congress than any president in history and that is a fact. ..and all the spending that he has done, we will be paying for that as taxpayers for over 100 years just like we have paid for democrat spending over the last 200 years. it is amazing what obama said -- he was elected twice. so what? so was bush.
i'm tired of listening to people tell us, like that idiot hastings, talking about texas. i have news for him, he is a more on. guest: he makes a good point. it amazes me. if you remember six years ago when democrats took over the senate, the headlines were "republicans need to work with senate democrats p ago now, we take over the senate and the headline is that we need to work with the democratic minority. it almost seems like we always have to work with the democrats. the democrats never have to compromise with us, we have to compromise with them. host: on the issue i want to bring up a recent comment that you made on the immigration debate and the leadership in the senate, saying that senate
majority leader mitch mcconnell is already sending a message that we lost the auto on immigration. can you talk through that? guess and let me throw -- finish my thought first on bush. he also made another great point. the democrats act like the bush years were this nirvana when they were constantly working with george w. bush. if you remember, they actually filed articles of impeachment. not filed, but drafted articles of impeachment. they constantly complain about bush. they constantly calls an illegitimate, and illegitimate president. now, they act like this is the first time that a party has opposed an opposing president. it happens everything all time. whenever you have divisions between the president and the congress, you will have these conflicts. if you remember, clinton was in
peach. -- impeach. ed. on this issue mitch mcconnell and the senate, i have been frustrated that he decided to go to the american people as a campaigner and say that he was going to do everything possible to stop the president agenda here in the senate with regards to his you legal amnesty for his executive action. as soon as he became majority leader of the senate, the first thing he said was we only have 54 votes so we will not be able to do anything about the actions. that was wrong. we were able to pass reforms in the senate when new gingrich -- newt gingrich was bigger the
house. we need to take our message to the people. we need to let the american people know what the president is doing. he is putting 5 million illegals ahead of the security of our country. mitch mcconnell needs to pick six or seven portable democrats and talk directly to their constituents and say, this person could be voting with republicans and stopping the president is legal amnesty, if he were willing to. that is what mitch mcconnell, as leader of the senate needs to be doing. host: have you seen him on capitol hill and talk to him face-to-face? guest: i have seen him. i have not talked to him face-to-face. host: will is waiting on the line from tennessee. caller: good morning, gentlemen. we think a lot of c-span. it gives us an open window to our government and what is going on in the background.
let me say three things. first, i was once a democrat. there are reasons that i left. i guess the main reason is that there is not much being done but needs party, whether democrat or republican. here is where i see the difference between democrats and republicans. democrats, through history, have always been humanitarian. if it were not for the title program, we would be lost. minimum wage is a joke today. it is because neither democrats or republicans seem to care. it is that top 2% is getting the money. there is no way out for the poor. number two republicans are of course what we call capitalists. they are for private enterprise.
that was good at the turn of the century and we needed the industrial revolution, that is all pass now. what the republicans ought to be doing is what is best for the american citizens. they are not doing that. host: congressman, you would take on the history of the two parties. guest: it is interesting. it was a republican party that freed the slaves. it was a republican party that helped pass civil rights legislation. it was the republican party that made sure people became better. i came from nothing. i came from puerto rico. i moved to the mainland in high school. now, i am the congressman from idaho. think about that story. i became a republican because i
believe that republicans believe in the individual. the individual, through his or her efforts, and can become something in society. they can play by the rules and become successful. it is the republican party that believes that more than the democrat party. if you look actual policies, when republicans were a control in the reagan years, we had unprecedented economic growth. when republicans were in control in the new gingrich years, we were able to balance the budget. the economy improve. we were able to do welfare reform and bring more people out of welfare than we have ever done in history. it is not just saying that you believe in helping poor people. it is actually the policies that matter. under this president, more people are in poverty, more people are losing jobs, more people are out of the work world.
even though this president says he cares for poor people and the less advantaged, and the disadvantaged, his policies and actually got more people down than any president in recent history. his policies do matter. it is not just that he says he cares, it is the things that he does that are actually not helping the american people. host: an independent from idaho falls. judy, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to get down to the nitty-gritty. idaho is a recipient state. we see more in federal funds that we pay and federal taxes. let's say you get what you want -- and title with a cut in half agricultural subsidies are gone military spending is down, mountain home is close.
how do you imagine life in idaho after that? guest: i do not think i ever said that i wanted military spending to go down or ford mountain home to close. the reality of why idaho is a recipient state is because we do not have the ability to use our federal lands. we have over 65% of idaho -- think about your state, is 65% of it were owned by the federal government and if there were restrictions on that land. what kind of land would you have? host: the department of the interior. guest: correct. they are managing our lands in our state. we want to get rid of that management. we want to make sure the state manages our lands. that we are in charge of our mineral rights agricultural rights, forest land. if we could do that, we would not need money to come into the
state. as you know, most of that money is coming in because the federal government has taken over much of our lands. yes, i would like to get rid of that. then we would be able to do very well without that federal money. we cannot misunderstand what is happening in idaho. if you look at massachusetts less than 1% of massachusetts is controlled by the federal government. we have about 65% of our state. that is the difference between the two states. host: maps from the nash -- national atlas showing idaho lands under control of the federal government. those are the green areas. you can see some of the federal land is division in idaho. june is up next from wisconsin.
caller: good morning. i am glad to have c-span. i would like to -- i do not agree with republicans on a lot of things, but i do agree with them on this immigration thing. this immigration thing is way out of control. it is absolutely horrendous. it is herman is what is going on in wisconsin and other states. it used to be that they were here doing jobs that black people, white people, and asian people would not do that is nonsense. there is a bunch of work out there for white people. i believe that republicans are on the right track. these 12 million people have to go back to their home countries. this is getting ridiculous. we can barely afford for our own
citizens of the united states. guest: what you're hearing from him is frustration that we are hearing from all american people. you have a president that has society he will give 5 million people. ability to work in the united states at a time of high unemployment. he will not make them go through the legal system. he will not make them go through the procedures to determine if they are people that we need any united states. i think that is what is wrong with what he is doing. i think republicans and democrats are frustrated on this issue. that is why i begged our republican leadership, both in the house and the senate, to take this issue seriously. not to worry about what the president is saying, how difficult this fight may be. the american people stand with us. host: he is talking about the way majority leader mitch mcconnell is working on this issue. what do you think about speaker
boehner? guest: it is out for mitch mcconnell to take it out in the senate and force a vote. and to go to the american people , to states with bone all -- with bone democrats -- with vulnerable democrats. there are probably millions of people just like the caller who are frustrated with the president's actions. host: we does have a couple minutes left with the congressman. ron is work -- waiting on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. it is an honor to speak with you. i find it absolutely laughable that any republican can come forward for the american people and say anything about that or spending since in 2008 when
obama first raised his hand as president, there were already $9 trillion in deficit. most of that has been used to pay to bail out the banks and housing industry, and try and save what little economy was left after the republicans crashed into the oven eight. -- it in 2008. guest: you do realize that it was a democratic congress in 2008? go ahead and finish with your thought. caller: the president then have the power, just like now. congress did not have all the power. guest: it was the democratic congress that pass legislation that got us into the debt. it was the democratic congress that passed the stimulus package. it was the democratic congress they did all these things.
if you're going to call someone laughable, let's make sure you have your facts straight. it was the two years of democratic leadership that brought us to the brink of an economic collapse. it was also, if you think about it, that bush tried to change housing laws, and he was not allowed to change them because of many of the problems he was having with congress. he told the american people that there was a problem with the housing bubble. this was because of democrats. democratic policy got us into this mess. it was the democratic leadership in the house and senate they got us into this mess. i am not excusing republicans. if you remember what i was talking about with the tea party. the tea party rose because they are so frustrated with republicans in washington dc who were not keeping their p promises. that is why i came to congress. i came to congress to make sure that we have a party that just -- does not just talk about its
principles, but acts on its principles. that is why we have the house freedom congress -- caucus. host: i want to get in bernard, waiting in florida, independent. caller: good morning. i think god for people such as c-span. i want to say to this congressman, as a black independent, i find it disingenuous for person like yourself to come on and lie like you have been. it was the republican party with their wars who got us in this mess, not president obama. also, for you to say that the republican party freed the slaves -- you never freed the slaves. host: i want to give you a moment to respond. guest: the history is clear, it was the republican party who
freed the slaves. it was abraham lincoln, the father of the republican party who freed the slaves. it was the republican party during the reagan years that brought about more freedom in the world than any other previous president. it was under reagan that we had less poverty more people out of problems that they had. we believed in the american people. we believe in the principles that bring more freedom and liberty. the more you shackle people with more government spending and regulation, it brings about less economic freedom. those are the things that we believe in and that we fight for. i think that it is unfortunate that the democratic party, and many people out there, try to tell a different story about the reality. it was al gore's father who fought against the civil rights act.
for the best magazine of the year in journals like the new yorker, the atlantic, or obscure literary magazines. they always come out around christmas week. a good week to step back and not read little instant stuff, tweets, newspaper articles but to step back and read something deeper and longer and celebrate those longer pieces. i do believe magazines changed history. the new republic was the most influential political magazine in the 20th century and really did change history. conservatism barely existed before. >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on c-span q&a.
>> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through its 1st session, new congress best access on c-span t1 t3. three. >> next, the testimony about the $4 billion budget. congressman paul ryan shares the house, ways and means committee hearing. -- chairs -- >> welcome to the committee ways and means hearing on president obama's budget proposal with our united states treasury secretary who is sitting far away down there. our hearing room is under
construction so this is temporary quarters for us. we are not used to the room. before we get started, be advised members may submit written questions to be treasury secretary to be answered later in writing and will be made part of the formal record. we under that the secretary has a hard stop at one o'clock so i will run this tight so we can get to as many people as possible but wherever we cut off we will start with that member in the queue next time we pick up with the next hearing just to try to play it fair like that. so secretary, i want to say something. we got your budget yesterday. four years in a row you are late and the minute i leave you produce it on time. what gives? in all seriousness, the one
positive thing i would like to say is it it a budget on time. and that clock means a lot. it means a lot of things. it sets the temp. congrats on giving us a budget on time. that said the irony wasn't lost that the administration submitted their budget on groundhog day. it is the same thing every year. you raised taxes by 1.7 trillion jow want to raise them again by 2.1 trillion. you want to tax saving and investment and small businesses. and sooner or later you will start looking for money in the couch cushions. i want to take an opportunity here to make something really clear. we are not going to raise taxes on the american people. they are working harder and harder to get ahead and they are
falling behind. wages are stagnating. they deserve another break. the kicker is with all of these tax increases you don't balance the budget because you don't get spending under control. i am disappointed in this proposing but as far as i am concerned i would rather spend time not focusing on our differences but let's find time and a way to see if there is common ground. i think there may be opportunity to do that. first thing i think of is trade. we all agree trade is good for america. more trade means higher pay. and so our top priority is to put in place trade promotion authority. to get the best deal we have to be in the best position possible and that is what tpa helps us do. i will be interested to hear how the administration is helping get tsa across the efficiency
line. next we want to fix the broken tax code. in the past, with this administration we have not had high hopes. but you have taken a few steps, in my opinion in the right direction, but in my opinion you need to move it further. you talk about fixing it for corporations but not families and small businesses. after this committee's meeting that tax reform can't be given unfair advantage to big companies over small companies the administration is finally talking about helping small businesses. even though your specific proposals are adequate it is a step in the right direction. the administration is taking a few more baby steps boy proposing ways to simplify the tax code for middle class americans. i will be interested to hear
what you say about tax reform. what the president is suggesting for sole priority and s corporations doesn't go far enough. small businesses are the engine of the economy and this committee isn't going to do just anything and leave them behind. this committee has to make sure they are part of the solution. the tax code has to work for everybody. especially families and small businesses. we need it make it simple, fair and competitive and create more jobs. that is the way to create jobs and build a healthy economy. we want to work with the administration and explore common ground. we have two big opportunities here on tax and trade. so we would like to get this done. let's see if we can find a way of working together. with that i would like to yield to the ranking member mr. levin. >> thank you very much mr.
chairman. welcome, mr. secretary, as the chairman said you are further away. we will try to make this more personal, though. i wanted to start on a personal note to recognize the fact someone who has served as our staff director on health this is her last hearing, and i don't know where shabel is. you are here? back here. thank you for all of your work. [applause] >> back in the months of march 2009 weeks after the president took office the economy lost more than 1.5 million jobs.
the most in any two month period since world war ii. today the economy is experiencing significant growth. with 58 consecutive months of private sector job gains over the past four years the u.s. has put more people back to work than europe japan and all of the world's major advanced economies combined. that is hardly a "stagnant economy". republicans try to minimize the dramatic turnaround. but they are instructed to visit what their parties presidential nominee in 2012 promised to achieve by his first term in office. mitt rommey said and i quote i can tell you over the four years by virtue of the policies we
have put in place we would get the unemployment rate down to 6% and perhaps a little lower. today nearly two years before that deadline the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6%. the ongoing challenge we confront, the challenge that persisted for the last three decades, dating back to the reagan years, is how to ensure that middle class families are not left out of the growth of our economy. it is now being experienced and it will be experienced in the future. the president's budget takes direct aim at that challenge including proposal to support working families making child care more accessible guaranteeing paid sick lever and making vital provisions like
the child tax credit and the american opportunity tax credit, and combines changes in the tax structure and provision for the long-term needs of the infrastructure. it closes tax loop holes that benefit a select few. those proposals are not envy economics. they are everyone economics. they are not the economics of envy. they are the economics of working for all. not just the very wealthy. through a fiscally responsible replacement for the sequester the president's budget would allow us to invest in education, medical research and other domestic priorities and provide the resources -- social security, medicare and medicaid -- that the irs need to serve the people. and it will provide for the military as they confront new
challenges. i hope the republicans give these and other proposals presented within the president's budget the full and serious consideration they deserve. one of the many outstanding issues in the trade pacific negotiations is mainly in the purview of treasury. currency manipulation has resulted in an increase of unfairly traded imports and made it difficult to compete in foreign markets and cost us millions of middle class jobs. tpt includes a number of former currency manipulators such as japan and other countries are discussing this who have been in the past manipulating their currency including china, taiwan
and other countries. they have developed guidelines to define when it occurs. the problem is the imf lacks any enforcement provision. that is why i suggest taking the existing guidelines and building on them so they can bow addressed. i have heard concerns the u.s. monetary policy might be at risk with such a revision. but the imf guidelines clearly spell out the u.s. monetary policy including quantitative easing isn't currency manipulatiraq manipulatiraq. the united states has not engaged in the first step and we don't have a second amount of foreign reserves. the imf supported each round of
quantitative easement since the great recession. the u.s. monetary policy would not be put at risk by addressing currency this way. i look forward to discussing this in a bipartisan and bicameral bases and with the administration on how to include a strong enforceable currency manipulation provision and tapping into the other outstanding issues i outlined late last month in a document i called a path toward an effective tpt. thank you for your service for our nation and going back to the days when you were younger and working for tip o'neal. i am very happy to welcome you
back. >> secretary lew, thank you for your time. your entire statement is in the record. if you could try to summarize it in five minutes and we can get to our questions. we appreciate that. the time is yours. >> thank you chairman ranking member and members of the committee it is good to be here to discuss the president's budget. mr. chairman this is the first time i have appeared with you since you took the hammer. i applaud you. a year ago the president said last year would be a breakthrough for the country. the evidence is clear america is making strides in job creation economic growth family wealth, energy independence manufacturing exports, stock market health care cost graduation rate and the deficit. our businesses created three million jobs last year.
the most jobs in any year since the 1990s. this caps five years of job growth the longest stretch in the nation's history with creating 11 million jobs. and the unemployment rate dropped to the lowest rate in six and a half years and the economy had healthy growth into the second third and fourth quarters and forecasters are promoting promoting continued growth. many are still trying to crawl out of the vast hole left boy the recession. by now people have health care insurance and health care prices rose to the lowest prices in year. and american taxpayers recovered more money than we invested. and thanks to the
administration's energy strategy we move closer to independence and gas prices are falling. but, for too many hard working men and women in this country it is too hard to get ahead, support a family afford child care, pay for college, buy a home and save for retirement. the president is offering solutions to strengthen the middle class and make the dollar go further. this lays out ways to reduce spending so we can reduce taxes for family and many companies. it will cut the cuts from sequestration and maintain a responsible fiscal path. as we know some were predicting
the president's policy would explode our deficit but history is showing the opposite is true. when i was budget director in the 1900s, i saw this happening. but in 2009, it was a different reality. after years of run away spending, including tax cuts for the well off and two wars not paid for and the financial crisis, our deficit reached a post-world war ii high. the president moved to right the fiscal shift. the agreements forged with congress the deficit fell by three quarters and the swift has been down since demobilization following world war ii. the deficit is projected to decline further in the next fiscal year. and we are putting a plan to lower it by 2% of our gdp. our nation's footing occurred
even as congress was unable to undo sequestration and replacing them with sensible and balance savings. nothing has been done to address the cuts in 2016. funding for defense, education, infrastructure and research will be severely cutback. the president's budget eliminates sequestration and achieves a balanced fiscal approach. in other words, it will chart a way forward to keep the fiscal house in order but create room for pro-growth economic policies that are needed to keep the nation stronger in the future. one strategy of tax reform is to restore basic fairness and efficiency to the system. by scrapping tax breaks that reduce the tax for the most fortunate for americans we can provide tax relief for those.
our economy should work for everyone and everyone should maintain a share of this. bipartisan tax reform helps america be the best place in america to be the bes place to grow and live and create high paying jobs for middle class families. we can reach a common ground and simplify the system and remove waste wasteful taxes and lowering tax rates so we don't have a system where some businesses pay nothing and others pay the highest rates in the developed word. it is time to stop rewarding companies that have the best accountant and strengthen those that build and hire here in the united states. it is time rid inversion. a thing in the past and this budget does that. a more fair efficient tax system creates middle class jobs and
grows the economy. we know that with business tax reform there will be a one-time transition revenues. the president wants to use some of the one-time revenue to make long overdo repairs to bridges ports, roads and airports. this need is critical. this budget creates sustained funding tr a six-year transportation bill and starting a new bond program that will ignite more public-private partnerships across the country. and building on the momentum we have made and making it possible for every american to get ahead is going to require a strategy that is bold and effective and that is what this budget is about. it invest in education by strengthening loans and making community college free for those that earn it.
boosting the earned income tax created and providing tax relief for families when both parents are holding down jobs. it invest in retirement security by making it easier for employees to save for the future and businesses to provide 401-ks. and creating more advanced manufacture institutes cutting edge research and broadbrand to all areas. it will send measures to the president desk that helps the economy now including raising minimum rage fixing the broken economic system and fixing the roads. it will improve the lives of millions of hard working americans and meet the responsibility to future generation. the task now is to find areas of common ground.
i am certain we can get this done. i look forward working with the committee so we can deliver with the american people and i look forward to answering your questions today. >> thank you, secretary. there are four areas i want to get into. i just had one from your testimony. the sequester. as the author of the last agreement, bipartisan agreement i think the formula we reached in the last session was the right precedent. >> what was that precedents? >> it was we understand the mandatory side and the auto pilot spending is what is not under control and the source of our debt crisis in the future and needs to be reformed. so what eddy murray and i sat down to do was find an ex ses
accessive amount of savings to fix the caps for people i think on both side of the aisle had. but the precedent was you had more spending reduction through entitlement mandatory reform which got us sequester relief as well. we know it is show stopper saying let's raise taxes to pay. we need mandatory reforms of relief from the sequester and smarting spending. we have a good formula in place, good precedents, it has bipartisan origin and let's try to stick with that formula. >> i think the agreement you and senator murray reached was important and it is one of the reasons we have been operating in a more normal way with one reason the budget could be on time this year. working together is important.
we present our view of the best way to do it in our budget and need to work on a bipartisan bases to reach agreement. >> let's stick with the formula we had because it worked before. i want to ask you about pass passthroughs. i am glad you say business reform instead of corporate. 80% of american businesses are not corporations. they file their taxes as individuals. llc's, subchapter s and so on. the issue that is a greater concern is unlike the big public companies and the ability to barrow at low in the rates the closely held businesses have found it hard to obtain credit these days as banks have restricken lending. we have a cash flow issue. they need cash flow to keep
people paid and working. but the current code is making it harder to do that. the budget is taking baby steps and section 179 has common ground and we will be doing that tomorrow. but other proposals like expanded cash accounting are only helping small c-corporations and don't do much for the vast majority of small businesses. so will you work with us to explore more areas in trying to help these closely held family businesses we think of as passthroughs to help figure out their issues because in this post dodd-frank world they have tighter credit. >> i believe our proposal reflects our commitment to making tax reform work. we call it reform on purpose because it is corporate and small business tax reform. we put in our plan a number of
things to simplify tax for small businesses and make it possible for deductions easier and quickly and lower the tax burden for many small businesses. a lot of different kinds of companies organize as passthrough. some are mom and pop businesses and some are large corporations. we look forward working on a bipartisan bases to work with small families companies. >> all i am saying is i don't think there is enough in the proposal to do justice to what needs to be done. let's keep working on that. transition -- i want to get you down on the record on this idea of tax reform financing highways. your point just to be clear is not to support a one-time repateration holiday like we did in 2004-2005 but only as means to permanent transition to a
hybrid system you call it. under that scenario do you see tax reform as part of the solution to the highway trust fund issues. >> we pointed out we thing the one-time holiday created a preverse incentive. it created an incentive for companies to keep their earnings overseas until the next holiday. we think we should change the structure so they are bringing the money home or investing it where it is economically efficient . the tax code is skewing ways in a way that is inefficient. we think the toll charge is the right way to have a transition and believe the one-time revenue can fund the highway
infrastructure program in a big way. business leaders in the country say we need to reform the tax code we need to build the infrastructure and three immigration reform. we can take care two of three here. >> i would take issue with the rate and style you are doing but putting that aside it is a move in a constructive way. we see it differently but it is for a permanent conversion to a permanent new system. last question is eitc. the data is clear it is effective. it is effective at moving people from poverty into the workforce. it is effective at lowering barriers that are in front of a person who wants to get into the workforce. but it is also a program that is known to have a high degree of fraud. it is known to have a high improper payment rate.
a lot of people say give the irs more agents and they can fix that. that is an in sufficient answer. will you work with us to try to figure out how to clean up the management and the structure so week get at this high improper payment rate and are their ideas you have about how it could be restructured and reformed so it truly knows those who are truly supposed to get it and not to others? >> mr. chairman i totally agree with you on the importance this as a bridge to work and get families back to work in a way that makes good sense. it has been a bipartisan commitment from its inception and i look forward to working for you and strengthening it. the under funding of the irs makes it challenging in many areas to put the resources that are needed into compliance.
so i hope we can work together to make sure the irs gets the resources it needs. it recovers or prevents $2 bill billion in claims and $4 million a year. we need to do better. it is related to the resources available. >> i think many of us agree there are other populations this reform could be applyied to; let's say childless adults. if we can contain it that would be huge and maybe lead to bipartisan common ground success. >> we look forward to working with the childless provisions. it is something i think would fill a gap in the system. i don't know whether the cost would be covered by it but i would be happy to lackook at it and
wo >> >> mr. chairman we have discussed these issues the to ask a broader question of the secretary briefly but i will just mention first about the passthroughs as one of the major challenges to tax reform as you indicated. but it has to be looked at comprehensively. we will markup other bills tomorrow and i think it is a mistake to take that outside of tax reform and paid for permanent. mr. secretary you expressed your view could you comment briefly on that approach? barack we have consistently opposed taking items one by one to make them permanent
in the unpaid for way even what we approve of. section 179 should be addressed and expanded in the context of business tax reform if we could have real progress that would be a way to do get it done to take it off the table for the future and remove that uncertainty with short-term extensions. >> thank you in terms of international taxation the secretary has mentioned a think how unsuccessful the repatriation was before and what the administration has come up with a hybrid system. we need to get away from labels to look at how it might work and briefly i think we need to look at the se itc with terms of implementation irs help is
not the only factor but as the secretary said to cut revenues appropriations for the irs is not the way to go. we cannot get tax enforcement when you cut down the ira's appropriation. mr. secretary would you use the three minutes to talk about middle-class economics tell us briefly what is the vision of this administration when it presents its budget? >> i appreciate the question. we put a lot of thought how to design a budget to address the challenge to major our economy works for middle-class families and families trying to break into the middle-class and we have identified the real
obstacles and burdens to include education opportunities, child-care and the challenge to save for retirement. we put in place of a series of provisions to make it possible for middle-class families to get ahead. we have an economy growing at a much better rate than the rest of the developed world. but it is not where there is as broad opportunity as there should be the provisions have a first step to solve that but the characterizations of this budget has been a bit off. it is not against one group or another breadmaking the system work for everyone. the truth is we have distortions in the tax system that allowed the most wells to avoid paying taxes on the same basis that we
all pay taxes. to use an example to compare the way we pay taxes is anyone who needs to use the assets they build up for retirement you pay income tax on that when you take it out. if you never need access you can pass that on tax-free. that is not right to. we should treat all earnings in a similar way. it is not against anyone but for everyone. >> will call mr. secretary also are serving as a managing trustee for social security and if we could get a'' up on the screen this is
what obama had to say when he was first elected. >> we have kicked the can down the road we're at the end of the road is not a position to take it any further we have to look at the seriousness to make sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch not somebody else. jiri 2009. we have to signal seriousness and do you agree but the president said then? yes or no. >> if you look at the condition of the social security trust fund it is in a stronger shape now and i think the president has said we need to do with the long-term problem in a bipartisan way but we have more time to do that. what we propose is a budget
to build the foundation to help social security it would lengthen the life of the trust fund we think we have improved the conditions of social security. >> i disagree because the shortfall bubbled 5 trillion up that 10 trillion while you guys have been in office that means social security cannot pay the promises it has made. by next question for the record to agree that social security finance have continued to deteriorate yes or no? >> we knew the baby boom would hit retirement so let's get social security financing one has to take account it was entirely predictable the reserves would pay benefits.
>> then why didn't you make a real plan to fix it? would you agree the disability program is in trouble? >> that is the separate issue by with say someone who was involved in the 1983 social security reform reduce a lot to fix it for the foreseeable shortfall put that money was spent because reran deficits for other purposes it is not a question and of the window of time of this administration but actually before. a disability fund we have proposed a number of reforms and there is a broad view there will need to be reallocation of trust fund taxes to deal with this issue. >> let's talk about reallocation actually that is take money that would have gone to retirement to
give it to the disability program? is that true? >> we state revenues from one part to another. >> it sounds like we are continuing to kick the can down the road we have to strengthen reserves of social security. with the president actually follow through on the words he said and actually do something on his watch? >> congressmen to get the history of the president has been prepared to have the conversation on a bipartisan basis for the long term but they did not reach one that led to an agreement the economy would benefit greatly if we could reach a bipartisan agreement and we have more time to do with long-term issues not that they don't need to be addressed by is and the environment with a bipartisan atmosphere that is conducive to it.
>> was told the president will actually do something on his watch. >> reform is the big step with a forward to working together on that. >> you know, americans depend on social security paying hundreds of not thousands of dollars into with each year and they want and need and deserve better. i'll look forward to working with you on this mr. chairman. >> i and a stand that the president cannot do something by himself on his watch but having said that it is difficult for me to look at you and not think of u.s. the kid that used to work for tip o'neill but you certainly make those of us as service.
most of us agree the area of trade and tax policy that there is a possibility we could find some area we could agree with. both of these issues we need to get votes and it is difficult to say we put tax reform over trade but people really talk about how will this affect my future? what disposable in, i have? pension benefits? can i get a house or pay the rent? it seems he allocate jobs with trade and certainly we can negotiate the tax bill to be fair as relates to the middle-class.
it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where it would be in the trade bill. it would improve the ability of the economy but where will the cuts be? if we could do this to get rid of the republican and democrat, people want to know if it is good for the country how was it good for me? >> it seems we will need infrastructure to support the trade bill i don't see how anybody regardless of their party cannot say infrastructure is a part of trade. also education matter the
benefits we have to have a work force that will meet the current challenges i wish his administration could get some of us a package so not talking in theory but jobs. if the republican majority could see its way clear to attach education job training, infrastructure to a trade package i can assure you that trade would mean more to our constituents if we can get that concept as part of the trade agreement and of course, i don't see any objection to give the president the authority to negotiate the trade agreement meaning those
things will be in it but i find it difficult to say we give the president the authority to negotiate and when they are complete we have up or down with no implied. i do believe that trade and tax reform could bring us together for our party to improve the image of congress. >> the base said reason we promote the trade authority is because we think it grows the u.s. economy and jobs in the country if you look at growth in the future of the emerging economies is the pacific where other countries are exporting into those markets we need to also. it was designed to be an
agreement to drive standards up we already have higher labor standards and other safeguards by having an agreement where we make our high standards mutually agreed and by having a world where we have access to the growing markets i think it will grow the employment base to create opportunities for middle-class families to have a better future. you have to negotiate hard to drive things in the right direction and in those areas presumably will address those issues. it is our job to come back with an agreement that delivers we will not bring back an agreement that we cannot defend off that is not thought going think the economy are middle-class jobs. that is the reason to pursue them. >> next month's supreme
court is scheduled to hear arguments if the irs overstepped its authority with regulations with the assistance tax subsidies purchased through the federal exchanges can you tell me if the irs is doing a thing to prepare that the court might rule against the irs? >> i will start by saying the affordable care act is working and tax credits are working millions of americans now have access to affordable coverage. >> but the accord is not ruling on that aspect. >> we believe the lawyers have made the argument that is compelling to the court will look for a to a positive ruling but we have to recognize.
>> i'm not asking for a prediction but in the possibility the court will will for the plaintiffs what planning is a treasury department prioress doing to deal with that? >> there is no question that an adverse ruling will strip millions of americans of health care coverage due to loss of credit. >> so based on that you were starting to work now to prepare for that ruling? >> i assaying they are an essential part of the affordable care act and if removed their days serious disruption of the health insurance markets. >> to ensure there is not serious destruction are you planning now to do with their rooming in the other direction? >> what we're doing is continuing to implement the law as it was written to make sure that all american
people had access. >> today are you guaranteeing the supreme court will rule for the irs in this case? >> what we're doing is of fomenting the law as it was writed. >> i get the impression you are very confident essentially guaranteeing that they will rule for the irs and therefore you have to do no planning? >> and the the justice department to make the legal case. >> the user they would not guarantee that today? >> that would never presume. >> i agree. there is a possibility to rule for the plaintiff.
should that occur republicans are already working to develop a thoughtful plan and to have affordable high-quality health care we do that work ahead of time is treasury or the irs doing the same type of work? >> i cannot comment on pending litigation secretary lew i am talking about planning in the possibility that you cannot guarantee the outcome so the possibility you might to rule otherwise are you planning for that? >> we are looking that the possibility will stand. >> one moment ago you
admitted you cannot guarantee the outcome. as republicans work to a thoughtful plan to address that ruling will the white house work with us in that eventuality of oil will you refuse to work with republicans to deal with that ruling? >> the oral argument has not taken place to indicate if there was a ruling of the premium tax credits it would be very disruptive. >> in that case will you work with republicans to kraft a solution will you work with us or refuse? >> there is a simple solution.
>> will you work with us or refuse to work with us? >> i am indicating our view ohio it would be a serious disruption we would look at what proposals are made but i will not judge ahead of time what the court does. >> secretary lew i applaud the president's efforts talking about said cleve for social security or medicare or students that will my colleague from texas is posing a you have a plan to rebuild your house? it is about as a positive of the idea as i have heard the
republicans and five and a half years have not proposed any alternative to the aca this afternoon at 130 they will bring a bill out of the floor to repealti time to plant something if they have something to bring forward they can lay it on the table or somewhere else. they never put anything on the table. to close the loophole but in this subchapter s of social security tax is. could you explain if you have a chapter s corporation and you don't have to pay your employment tax is a you
don't pay for medicare or social security. with you are 65 you eligible to get social security and get medicare to a program you have not paid one single dime? >> if i can respond on the point that i try to indicate the degree of disruption would be enormous. this is also important to recognize and to make it more affordable for americans to get health care. the american people are tired of the debate of repealing the affordable care act or how to make it work. >> with a question of
eligibility obviously there is a significant issue sojourn taxol earnings of the chapter s corporations so that addresses the underlying issue. >> so there now eligible if they don't pay? >> they pay in but not as much as they bled. the question isn't if they're eligible for benefits but if they pay in on the fair basis. >> the question is if they make payments. >> reason to question about
a student at can you give me and the reason why they cannot renegotiate their loans if they to a catalog and 9% why do they have to stay at 9% for the rest of their life? on my house i have renegotiated my long as three or four times to bring it down to a lesser rate. why can students? >> we have looked at this issue to work with proposals to give students more flexibility in terms of how to manage their student dead. obviously the student loan program is designed to give favorable access to credit but the rates are not always at a level that our competitive with what would be available with their credit worth a bar were. the challenges to work
through to make sure students know all the options that they have to repave the dead in the affordable way to go through the process. >> to do understand the financial system when you were 20 years old? >> the financial system was simpler when i was 20 years old. but not as much as i should have is the answer. [laughter] >>. >> i think most of us are hopeful the administration is willing to work with the sun tax reform and i hear you say that you are. that is good news but i checked away from your last answer the you'll work with us depending upon the
supreme court decision that lack of a yes or no answer indicates the unwillingness i hope that is the transfer over into tax reform or other issues. i want to focus of the small business pass through a question for you made some comments that i find interesting compared to the link wages in the budget. -- language in the budget the hard working americans deserve a tax code that works for them. you would agree with that i am sure. they need to have consistency with that assertion. >> host: they can plan for businesses that gives them the security of that
knowledge and the success of their business. when you say you are willing to work with us, knu explain why a new our budget you did so little in that area for the past sarah entities? why isn't it more bold? if that is how you felt about the pass through? >> we have done a number of things that will help small business. >> but why did you do more? >> you agreed with the chairman to say we could do more energy will work with you but why did he do that first? >> we put forward what we think is a good package if
there is a desire to do more we're open to ideas. the challenge will be to come up with ideas that work that don't have unintended consequences. >> you will not answer my question? >> i will be perfectly candid i have said privately to the chair bin it is a complicated area where it will benefit all of us stick making id reaffirm you will work with us? >> i said we will work together. >> so tomorrow as we refer to the seven bills that are marked up tomorrow with the s corporation to make those tax extenders' permanent i don't wish to talk about the pregnancy issue but you said you agreed with the policy.
can you give me an example how these measures and legislation it could be expanded? how might you expand the s corporation? >> we have taken up to $1 million that could be expense in a single year for most business is that is the enormous benefit. >> give me an example. you said that already. >> i'm here to present a budget you asked me to present things from the future. >> recently we adopted a macro economic analysis. does treasury had a dynamic model?
>> we take account of economic factors practice treasury have a dynamic model? >> yes. >> good. that was easy. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. secretary they queue for being here today. i want you to make it plain and crystal clear that republicans today repeal the affordable care act and later this and a repeal the act may be he changes his mind and will not veto. >> he has not changed his mind.
[laughter] >> what would happen to hundreds or thousands or millions of people who have affordable care act now? >> congressman who is because of the affordable care act we have millions of people who have health insurance coverage that did not have it. the challenge of providing the kind of security of family only knows with health insurance has taken as decades to accomplish we would take us step back to assess security that flows from it. it would be a very bad situation why the president would veto a measure that would repeal the affordable care act. >> what does the president's budget do to help more
people save for their retirement? what would help more americans save for retirement? >> we have created incentives for employers to include in the for a 1k plan made easier by giving tax benefits for the administrative cost for matching contributions building on top of the proposal individuals can start with that easy starter account we have had proposals to go from a system to go into retirement where they opt out. we know that works to get
many people covered. we have quite a robust difference that generational made a retirement savings. >> as a country the savings rate is improving but we need to see middle-class workers saving for retirement the average amounts of the most tavis is not enough to rely on. you have to have a very large accounts and we are concerned about working families that we have to put in place the tax incentives to move the process were word -- for word. >> i yield back. >> there is a lot of talk of
small businesses and affordable health care but i have concern from september september 2013 to issues of regulation penalizing the health reimpression to purchase health insurance plans on the individual market why wade treasury is into this draconian penalty of stroll with dash a small businesses that are struggling? >> we have moved into a system where there is the established way for plans to be put forward to have access to coverage we're working hard to implement that it is easy to take advantage him participate. >> there are complications
and death penalty is 10 times of the fines imposed on larger businesses under the mandate it is a $3,000 aid will find per employee but if you total up the penalties of $100 per day we are talking $36,200,500 for a small business? that doesn't seem you try to help small business and working families. >> our objective is to make sure affordable health care is available to all. a believe the provision is not consistent with that i am happy to follow what. >> this deserves serious attention because they have very high premium increases over 40 percent over last year but yet we have this.
to get back to the budget with a surtax mrs. said temporary tax credit that has outlived its purpose in the '80s to recover the cost of benefits. the tax stick around and we ended it 2011 and the administration wants to revive this temporary tax. why? >> for a number of years we have put proposals together that it is on sound financial footing we put together our ideas how to accomplish that and think it is an important objective in record to working in a bipartisan way we are in sound financial footing
going forward. >> i hope we get to some resolution. but the rebates touche treasury's role with regard to negotiations with china has to be a top priority item interested to get a full understanding with treasury is doing with regard to that development with our negotiations with china for another president just announced that will resume negotiations and we seem to be miles apart from india. there is not much time left you want to talk about it? >> i will have to get back to you more detailed but i am deeply involved with discussions with china and the dialogue is an important
conversation if it concludes successfully china will raise itself to standards that will help in a lot of ways to normalize trade balance. >> it empowers them for the international market. >> sanders and the rationale >> no one to summary of where we are. >> their taking the first step a list of industries that is the important indication of the seriousness. >> have a bite to stay in contact. thank you. >> mr. secretary, congratulatio ns on your eitc proposal we had conversations about this
already. the past to do with the lack of standards and there seems to be a consensus horvath as well. so perhaps we should just expand the eitc to not have that paid for. i thought we were close did real also got there but i hope we considered half the people would get up every single day not with a retirement plan would consider savings. and congratulations on the tax credit program along with the build america of bonds and those were great