Pass a Congressional Review Act to go after the trial lawyers. To defund the trial lawyers which the trial lawyers say theyre anticonsumer. So you have a United Republican Party sitting around and voting, flake, mccain, corker, everybody. Just after this sort of dustup. The press covered the dustup and missed the dramatic cra that overrode the doddfrank regulationing that had just had been in and we now took it out. Just an example. Within hours of the dustup, it affected nobodys vote. We lost two people because the trial lawyers have a lease on them. Not ownership perhaps but youre going to lose those anyway whether they were best friends with the president or not because of their relationship with the trial lawyers. So cheerful news. Going to pass. I think some people will make a case as to all the cool things it will do for the economy. Lower marginal tax rates on capital and labor is selfevidently good for the country. Thanks. Thanks very much. Were off to a good start. Grover had a great insights. And id like to associate myself with his optimism if not i cant replicate his passion. Im optimistic were going to have a tax bill. Im hopeful that the folks in the room are optimistic. Thats why theyre here, not just for the free food. I hope youre here because you believe there will be a tax bill and you want to know more about it and what it might look like or what it should try to look like. I want to try to touch on a few issues sort of generally what tax reform is or can be or should be. And then ill try to touch on some of the economics and particularly the economics can around Corporate Tax cuts and Corporate Tax reform. First an issue that the past speakers addressed. This question of tax cuts versus tax reform. Which is which. Why are we calling this reform . Why did we call the other bills during the bush era tax cuts. Are we pore one or the other. The first key and this is i think consistent with what grover was saying, its not a binary choice. If you ask academics not politicians who say tax policy, that is tax reform, generally the answer is it is moving it from the tax code we have to one where we get the same amount of revenue in a better way. So instead of doing it in a way that hurts the economy, try to figure out how to collect revenues in a way that hurts less. That often involves first and foremost lowertach rates. And so i think if you think how to message some of these issues weve heard over the last year or so as this debate has heated up folks talking about that concept and oftentimes the way thats messaged is people say im for tax refor and want to cut taxes, tax rates and close loopholes. If you say it that way, it sounds pretty good because people arent in favor of tax loopholes. Theres another way to say the same thing which is maybe a little wonkyer which is i want to cut taxes, tax rates and broaden the tax base. And i think if you say that to a broad audience of constituents, that actually might also go over okay. The reason i think it will go over okay is because nobody knows what broadening the tax base means. They understand tax rates and lower rates. Theres this is other thing that doesnt offend them. Theyre still sort of excited. If you tell people that you want to cut taxes and lower tax rates and you want to raise taxes also at the same time, well that, doesnt go over well at all. Thats the winners and losers problem that was mentioned in the introduction and thats some of the challenges on the politicians face. So cutting ach rates and also creating lots of winners is tough politics. I think theres plenty of evidence of that. And so but its not a binary choice. We still have that play out in the budget resolution and weve seen that play out in sort of the core core outline the big six plan the Republican Leaders have introduced talking about cutting taxes. Theyre talking about cutting tax rates and talking about some base broadners like doing some things to repeal some deductions, repeal some credits. Theres a good reason for that. I want to speak for a moment in defense of base broadners, some of these repeal of these special provisions in the code is because those provisions are distortionary, bad economics and make people make choices they wouldnt otherwise make. I dont mean to say there isnt one thats not defensible. If we use the tax code as a tool where lawmakers are deciding how to overand over and over again how to push or pull taxpayers into making different decisions, then we end up with a system that is full of holes and subsequently very high tax rates. And those tax rates are bad. And those distortions are oftentimes bad, as well. And so the tax reform is about going back to the broader base, taxing grover says tax everything once. I completely agree. That means everything. Tax it just once but tax everything once. And lets move in that direction. And what we saw in the budget resolution is an effort to reduce taxes. Reduce taxes over the next decade by a trillion and a half dollars. What we know from the proposals described so far is it also talks about having a system thats a little bit simpler with a bit after broader base. We get simpler by doubling the standard deduction, by repealing the state and local Tax Deduction. Some fairness and then we can get more tax cuts as we have those offsets. When you add it together, it looks like its going to be a net Tax Deduction thats going to afford more tax cuts overall. I want to focus in on one aspect of the tax reform which is whats happening on the business side. Now, folks who play in this space know most of the revenue raised from the tax code come from vids. Payroll tax obviously is a huge tax but the income, the ordinary income tax is where we get most of our revenues. Its from taxing wages from taxing workers and households. But about 10 of the revenues come from corporations. And which taxes to cut first and which taxes you know, which tax cuts yield the most benefit, we dont know that by looking where we get the revenue. We know that by looking at sort of the economics underlying the consequences. Thats easy to understand because as someone said in i think in the wall street journal yesterday if we had a Million Dollar tax on Airline Flights we would have no Airline Flights. That doesnt mean the tax isnt distortionary. On the corporate side, this is the taxi think is the most distortionary. Probably everyone in the room knows two things. Corporate tax code. Im going to repeat them one more time. We have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. Weve will it, everyone else cut their rate. Ours is 35 plus the state tax, the highest rate in the world and as a consequence, our business tax system, Corporate Tax system is not competitive with our competitors. Everyones heard that so many times. For a decade theres been a campaign to cut the Corporate Tax rate. Those are the two the arguments. First ours is the worst and second hurting our competitiveness. But the problem is, so what . What does that mean . No ones made the case for why i as a worker should care so much that the ceo of ford has to sit on top of a company that where hes the ceo of a company paying in a tax system thats less competitive than the ceo of bmw. What does it matter to me. So weve heard so much about the rhetoric how our code is the worst but we dont pay the Corporate Tax. We pay the individual income tax. Were the votes. What we havent heard in the last decade is a strong argument about why i should care about those facts. Those facts are true but no ones done a good job convincing us why that matters till a couple of weeks ago. A couple weeks ago, the argument started to shift and it became an argument to itself, became a debate and became i wont say a scandal. In the Economics Community theres a sort of big argument going on right now about why we should care. And the issue is this. We know that corporations dont, they collect a tax but theres a consequence to someone else in the economy as a result of that tax. And broadly speaking it could be the guys that own the business or it could be the guys that work in the business. And the question is, who is the loser when we have the worse Corporate Tax rate. Ill tell you, for a long time, economists there was sort of a consensus, an agreement across the political spectrum. This goes back decades ago. But decades ago, there was a consensus among liberal and conservative economists that there was the shareholders. That the owners of the business were the ones whos sort of bore the brunt of the Corporate Income tax. And then some people started to revisit that question and look again at the evidence and recognize that the Economy Today is different than the economy of 20, 30 or 50 years ago and that this burden may be different, as well. And the reason why there was a consensus and quite frankly it might have been true in the past. The where that consensus came from was a view of the economy that was relatively simple. View of the economy in the old world was that the economy is generally closed. Meaning not open to trade. And that the amount of capital in the economy is relatively fixed. And so if youre taxing capital, then if you own it, you know, you bear the brunt of that tax. But other than that, it doesnt really matter because its just kind ive fixed thing. Well, thats actually not how the economy works today. Today the economy is much more open than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago and there isnt a limited supply of capital in the United States. Theres kind of an infinite amount of capital, not literally but we do know when Business Opportunities are good in one country whether it be arld or malaysia or the netherlands or france or germany or wherever or mexico or canada, people take their money and go to that place. They build factories there. They hire workers there. Thats not the United States today. And so the principle behind Corporate Tax reform, why its important is because it will bring activity here. And is the first thing. The second thing is, it will bring reported profits here, as well. And we are in a very dynamic global Economy Today. We havent closed off our economy yet to the rest of the where would although sometimes we threaten. Some of us have threatened to. We have a relatively open economy and when a Corporate Tax rates change dramatically, we will see businesses respond dramatically. We will see profits soliciting back into the United States and we will see an increase in reinvestment in the United States. The consequence of that, that change in Real Investment in the United States will have consequences for the workers. It will have consequences for the people who work in the factories who work at those businesses. Their wages will benefit. It is not a complicated economic model to suggest that. Its a simple model. One that is an open economy model and we can get those effects. The council of economic advisers estimated that effect could be as much as 4,000 per household. Er who people have estimates. I dont want to endorse any one of these numbers. The Tax Foundation was saying the number might be 1800. Larry could thely cough had one a few weeks ago in the wall street journal. To be honest, its hard to know because we havent done this in a long time. But this is an experiment worth trying because we knows theoretically and from the experiences of other countries that when other countries have done this, and when is we understand that the economy is relatively open, we understand that wages will go up. Exactly how much well find out. But we know directionally that the economy is going to be better off. That doesnt mean that the shareholders will be the only ones better off. Its the workers who will be the ones who are better off. Theres a lot of chatter, this is the last point ill make and ill pass the mike. Theres been a lot of chatter about the wage question which i think is fantastic to be having this debate and lets argue whether its 1800 for 4,000 or some other number. We know its a positive number. Theres a lot of chatter about the Economic Growth overall. Gdp effects. Here too we should be confident if we can bring the rates down and we have to be cognizant in this context of the net budget impact, whether its the net revenue or net deficit impact. But we can have a tax reform that is net positive for the overall economy. What that means is that we will with a better system one different from the system we have today, the size of the u. S. Economy will be larger than it otherwise would be. It will take time from the day of enactment to the day that that effect is fully realized and during that period of time, the economy will grow faster and then it will reach this new higher level that it otherwise wouldnt reach and well all be better off as a result of that. Sometimes people claim we might get 10 growth. I think that would be misleading. But absolutely i believe we can see faster Economic Growth in the near and medium term and good tax reform fiscally responsible and brings down the marginal rates particularly the business reforms that bring a corporate rate that makes us than many of our competitors will bring in a lot of the revenue. That dynamic score of that corporate change i think is something we should be thinking a lot about. Theres a good chance well have so much on shoring of corporate profits well be losing far less revenue than would otherwise be suggested by the sort of conventional models from cpo and joint tax. So i share the optimism in terms of timing. It will take a little bit of time. I dont think this is something thats going to wrap up before christmas but that doesnt matter from an economic perspective, i think lawmakers will get this done early next year and there are going to be benefits as a result of it. Thank you. Thank you, alex and grover. Thank you all for being here. Im going to talk about individual tax changes. Alex mainly talked about the business end of it. The main thrust of the republican plan on the individual side is to lower marginal tax rates. Why do we want lower marginal tax rates . Lower rates encourage people to do productive things like working in saving and discourages them from doing unproductive things like tax avoidance and evasion, cutting the top tax rates is particularly important. Ronald reagan slashed the top individual tax rate back in 81 from 70 to 50 . Then the rate dropped further in 1986 to just 28 . The 1986 Tax Reform Act was remarkable. You go back and look at the vote count. There was large bipartisan majorities in both house and senate in 1986 to drop the top personal rate to just 28 . Kind of remarkable. Today the top rate is at 40 . Republicans are talking about dropping it to 35 which would be progress. So why is cutting top rates so important . Let me get a little bit wonky with you. Economic distortions rise rapidly as marginal tax rates rise. Economist greg man cue said it is a standard proposition in economics that the dead weight loss of atach rises with the square of the tax rate if we double a tax, the dead weight loss increases fourfold. A 40 tax rate is four times more damaging than a 20 tax rate. So its basic economic theory that the damage from high tax rates is particularly troubling for the economy. Also, high earners tending to very dynamic with their, was their earning and investing behavior, more flexibility than other taxpayers you get the biggest bang for the buck in tax cuts when theres strong behavioral responses and studies find that high earners have the strongest behavior responses to tax changes. Its also true and this is more of an opinion the people at the top end are highly productive. Its true than the top ends of the tax distribution, you get a lot of hollywood people and people like Kim Kardashian and people like that. However the bulk of people at the top end theyre entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, doctors, brain surgeons, executives, these folks are very important to the economy. It would do more for Economic Growth to cut their thaxs than to cut the taxes of a wage earner like me. For these reasons, countries around the world have slashed personal income tax rates in the last few decades. Alex talked about how Corporate Tax rates have fallen. Its also true for individual rates. Back in the mid1980, the ample top rate in the oecd countries for individuals was 64 . At the time, we were at around 55 . Then we slashed rates in 1986. And we remained below the oecd average for just about three decades up till 2013. In 2013, the bush tax cuts for high earners expired and since then the United States has had a higher top personal rate than the average for oecd countries with state taxes were at around 46 now. For individuals and the average in the oecd is 43 . United states is actually punishing country for high earners. Oecd country a number of years ago found we have the most progressive tax system amongst all their member countries. Thats not a good thing. The top 10 in the United States pay 45 of all income and Social Security taxes. So 45 the average in the oecd is just 32 so for a country supposed to be a haven for entrepreneurship and opportunity, i think our punishing taxation at the high end is bad economics. Let me talk about the gop framework, alex touched on the business provisions. For individuals the main thrust is to drop our current seven tax brackets down to three lower brackets. Thats good stuff. The republicans would also double the standard deduction and increase the child tax credit. Those provisions wont do anything for growth because they dont change an individual workers sort of marginal behavior to increase their work effort. It is true doubling the standard deduction would be a big simfully indication. Im disappointed Capital Gains cuts are not included in the framework. They would play a unique role into entrepreneurship and investment in startup companies. Nearly all oecd countries have substantially lower capital gain tax rates. Our rate is around 28 . The average in the oecd on Capital Gains remarkably is around 16 . So i hope like grover says that republicans will come back in future years and tackle the Capital Gains tax problem. Let me talk for a few minutes about distribution or who gets the tax cuts. When the republicans released their framework a few weeks ago, there was lots of discussion in the media an by lots of pundits these are tax cuts for the rich. The urban Institute Tax policy center analyzed the republican plan and their results seem to show it favored high earners. Tax policy center, they do have topnotch analysts over there. Theyre skilled economists but i think they slant the results in a liberal direction. Ill give you an example of that. Their results for the republican plan show the middle earners would get an average tax cut of 660. High earners would get a much bigger tax cut of 8,400. But the Tax Policy Center did not show how much those two groups were currently paying in tax. So i looked at those numbers and found that the 8,400 tax cut for a high earn would be a 12 cut. But the 660 cut for middle earns would be a much bigger 20 cut. So tpc didnt show this in their results but their Analysis Shows the middle earners get bigger percentage tax cuts. Another problem with the tpc result is that you know, their modeling and use static models and that you know, static and dynamic scoring has got a lot of discussioning in recent years because it affects the overall an revenue estimates for tax bills. But the dynamic scoring versus static scoring is very important to distribution tables. The tpc distribution tables i think were biased in a way that showed that high earners would do better than they actually would because they were static tables. Another issue is the allocation of the Corporate Tax burden. The Tax Policy Center assumes most of the Corporate Tax burden falls on shareholders which again would show that the republican plan mainly benefits high earners. But the reality is in the long run, most conservative economists think that the corporatetach burden lands on workers. So if you cut Corporate Tax rates in the long run, its going to be workers who are the main beneficiaries of that. So my point here is just to be very cautious about these studies and what news stories are saying about who benefits from tax cuts. Those questions are actually really complicated. So to conclude, having just discussed distribution tables, i dont think republicans should focus on distribution. I think they ought to leave those issues of class warfare to the other party. I think republicans ought to focus on how tax reform will create broadbased prosperity that benefits everyone. Liberals have suggested we dont need a tax cut now because the economy is doing pretty well right now. But the purpose of tax reforms is longterm Economic Growth. In the short run, economist Larry Lindsay noted in the wall street journal account other day when a supplyside tax bill like this is passed at a time of full employment, labors share of the economic pie expands rapidly. Because labor markets are fairly tight right now, lindsay expects substantial real wage growth if congress passeses a supplyside tax cut. Supplyside tax reform would generate more business investment, more Job Opportunities and higher wages in the long run in my view, the republican tax plan so far wore advance those goals. I think in the long run benefit every american. The challenge now i think going ahead is that republicans retain the most pro growth or supplyside elements much of their plan and they dont get watered down as the plan moves through congress. Im going to give the podium to ryan who take your questions. Thank you. Thank you very much to all three of you. Very optimistic analysis so far today. Were now open for ten minutes or so for questions from the floor. Before you ask your question, if you could say who you are and then as a kind of nagging thing for me, try to keep the question as pithy as possible so that we can fit as many in. Yes, lady at the front. Im concerned about the people that voted to get donald trump 25 tax bracket. People whose taxes would go to higher people to do cleaning to do yard work. And when we talk about the situation, we have to look at the elections in 2018. I would like to ask the panel if they would agree that giving the middle class a tax breaking is the most important thing because granted, the Corporate Tax is an issue. But if you want to keep republicans in their seats in 2018, dont you believe that the people that voted for donald trump should be respected . The biggest winners of this tax package are the people who dont have a job today and didnt have one during obama years and get one because we have Economic Growth. Those people go from zero to a wage. Okay . You can talk to other people that get 4,000 per family or 1800 per family, in increased wages. Thats good. But thats not as big a deal as the guy who used to not have a job and now does. Thats where the damage that was done by the high tax rates that we put out were at 35, socialist china is at 25. And we wonder why we dont compete and blame the chinese like they wrote our tax code for us. We did that to ourselves. And stop damaging yourself is step one. And thats where again, the biggest winners are the people who dont have jobs who are just coming into the labor force and werent going to get jobs or have been or fit looking. I mean, i dont think the economys doing well today. Im tired of hearing this today. If you look at the number of people who quit looking for work, this is depressing. 3 briefly, you know, is not heroic. It used to be a little less than normal. So we need a much stronger economy. The biggest ben fieficiary is t guy that will get a job and the trump voters are that person or married to that person or sons or daughters or parents of that person. Thats the biggest political win. When people see that, thats when the republicans pick up five senate seats in november and hold the house and then we get back to some really serious tax cutting after that election. This is sort of a hor dorr f. Broadly you have to make a distinction between policys that are kind of popular in surveys and, you know, when people analyze these very static tables and figure out whether theyre a winner or loser directly but the results might be incredibly popular and if you had robust growth with the Corporate Tax cuts feeding through into wage growth, as well, people consider that in the round in the next election rather than the debates were having as the bills go through congress. Guy at the front. Hi. I teem guy at the front. Tax notes. Grover, this ones for you. Youre optimistic that the current republican tax reform bill will become law. Why do you think that . Well, several things. This has been in the works for three years. Every once in a while a reporter seems to think we started writing it, you know, a month ago. The house and senate has been coordinating for months now. The house senate and white house leadership have been talking daily for at least six months. So this is pre negotiated. You saw how seamlessly we had the house pass the budget and a whole bunch of people that didnt want to vote for the budget for Different Reasons and held their breath and did in the house and then in the senate and then the senate said, hey house, what would you like different . The house said we need these things and amended theirs. Right . This is an incredible amount of and quality of house Senate Coordination in working together to get this thing done and then went back do the house and they just had to vote for the measure that they sort of prenegotiated so were seeing them work. This is not quite fred astair and ginger ronlg eargers but ite in terms of the house and Senate Working together so in each of these things youre also asking people to vote for tax cut. Okay . This does not have a lot of this is not 25 the house im sorry. Its two dimensional, right . Up down. Is that one dimensional . Anyway, its not a lot of moving parts. Not three dimensional chess. Not health care. Theres not a huge, financial interest like Insurance Companies or hospitals or pharmaceuticals all fighting against your reforms because theyre all aid pauf to do the obamacare reform and undoing that, you know, theyd already made their deal. We dont have that in the same way on tax reform where you are cutting just about everybodys overall taxes down. Its an easier sell. Republicans know how to cut taxes. They may invade small countries they cant pronounce but they will cut your taxes. I would also add to that that i see an unusual unification of purpose on the business side. I mean, for years in washington i have always lamented gnat corporate lobbyists come up here to capitol hill and fight for the narrow, little thing and not worry about overall reform. I have seen so many corporate ceos on, you know, cnn and cnbc, et cetera the last few years, all pushing for overall, broad reform. Theyre unified so i think its a show of strong support in the Business Community, small and big businesses so hope that unify stays together and i think it will. I have talked to a bunch of business guys that go dont tell anyone but we dont mind about this, this, this and if you get the rate down. The number of things they dont care about if the rates werent part of it they care deeply about. Bringing the rates down and including subchapter s, guys, the pass through, really unifies the Business Community and i havent met any of them that go, oh, we dont care about the rates. They all care deeply about the rates. Okay. Next question going to the maroon shirt. [ inaudible ] theres been no mention about the National Debt in this conversation and with debt rising by 20,000 every second, and with National Debt hitting 20 trillion in september, how important is fiscal responsibility to you . Alex, do you want to comment on that distinction . Sure. I worry about the long run fiscal outlook. I think we all should. I think that we need to think about getting our books in balance. I would also say in the context of tax reform we should distinguish between what the tenyear budget number is and tax policy, the only number anyone ever talks about the longterm budget consequences are. I have said before, ive written this before and testified about this that i think its very responsible to be concerned about the lonrun fiscal outlook and recognize theres costs associated with transitioning from the tax code we have to the tax code we want. All right . And so, there are a lot of reforms that will, you know, have relatively small revenue and positive revenue impacts in the near term but might have Large Revenue impacts outside the budget window. There might be a desire to front load the tax cuts for political reasons or other reasons. And so, there might be a mismatch within the budget window. And so, i think that, you know, we have this framework not to change it from the way the budget act of 74 prescribes it, the policymakers look at tax policy but i think its totally responsible to budget finance tax reform. We also need to be cognizant of the long run tax realities will be and recognizing the dynamic nature of fiscal policy and tax policy generally and think about how we might be better off as a result of tax reform. Were not better off in the next day after tax reform. It takes time to make that adjustment. Once it occurs we have a Broader Tax Base and, you know, other reforms that are in the code, you know, start to take effect. I think, you know, we wont face the same we may not, depends on the details, right . We may not necessarily face the same long run budget consequences of tax policy we see within the budget agreement within ten years. The deficit is an uninteresting and unimportant number that is the difference between two very interesting and important numbers. How much the government spends is the dead weight cost of government. And whether they borrow it or steal it to make that number, total depending thats the dead weight cost of government that comes out of the productive economy and goes to the government. How much the government takes in taxes and how they do it, thats important, too. The how can be more destructive, less destructive and part of tax reform is being less destructive of Economic Growth and jobs and opportunity while still raising revenue so when people focus on the deficit, its because republicans back in the 50s said, were against deficit spending. That was they said deficit spending because they think anyone would care about spending. All the methodist oppose it. And say debt, debt, debt. It is the total spending thats the problem. My professor at harvard said this deficit spending is a stupid concept. Just those conservatives getting in the way of spending. Okay . He saw the use of deficit as an antispending thing and he was left of center. Very pro government spending. Thought it was an excuse. Conservatives, free market people, limited Government People who say deficit spending make a mistake. They should be talking about spending, not just deficit spending. Raising taxes to pay for Big Government doesnt make Big Government go away. It just encourages them. Then theyll spend more. Oh, we have to raise taxes and do more. Our friends on the left who dont mind deficits when were doing obama stimulus or obamacare or creating new entitlement programs and then all of a sudden when were tax cuts against deficits. Thats why the fellow the Third Party Candidate against bush ross perot. He goes, the republicans are against deficits. Against deficit spending. And the democrats against deaf sits. Theyre against tax cuts. They agreeing and cant do it. They werent agreeing. Deficit to mean two things. Democrats mean raise taxes. Republicans when they mean cut spending and we should be clear about what were doing and you yes, long run we want to not be adding to deficit and debt because we want to be spending less and we get the economy growing so much that theres plenty of revenue. So the deficit can be a shiny thing that people use to distract. It makes it difficult to have a conversation when liberals say deficit when they mean tax you more and republicans say deficit and cut spending and the poor person watching tv at home goes, i dont understand why they cant agree. So the i would say the deficits are usually important issue. It is an immoshl and unethical to throw the cost on to future generations. Thats why i think in the tax bill it is very, very important to make sure that the vast majority of reforms and cuts are pro growth or supply side so that the economy will spend in the long run, the government get a reflow of revenue. If you have Something Like an expansion in child tax credit, i get why a politician wants to do that for political reasons but lets say it causes a 50 billion a year, you know, government revenue loss. That loss will stay in the long term. If you take the 50 billion, cut the Corporate Tax rate or some other side of supply side reform, as alex said, the corporations report more income to the u. S. Government, there will be a big reflow of revenues back in the United States. And the government would be a winner in the long run. So the republicans i really hope they keep focused on pro growth tax reforms and not just sort of tax cuts that are sort of short term giveaways. Okay. I think we have time for one more question so who would like to yeah. The guy in the blue shirt. I know, alex, you touched on theyre broadening the tax base and grover you talked about people who dont have jobs being the real beneficiaries. Im wondering how confident you are in this bill that those tax cuts will be offset by the new jobs and broadening of the tax base and if you know an industry to benefit more from these tax cuts or where the jobs will be coming from. Stock tips . Yeah. Im optimistic. I mean, we havent seen the plan and i think well see it beginning of november. Details more than the broad outlines. Im very optimistic. You know, we across the industries i would say that Different Industries have faced different tax burdens. You know . Retailers tend to pay a lot. Guy that is shift the income abroad, their intellectual capital abroad pays less and tax reform should even it out industry by industry. I agree, you know, if you dont have a job, getting a job is greatest thing. And to the extent that happens that will be great. You know, we have low unemployment at the moment. Low unemployment rate. But we have a lot of people out of the labor market. I dont know if those people reenter the labor market if the opportunities for them are great enough but i hope so and i think they may. We have other pressures on the system. Besides tax policy. But i think theres an opportunity for more people to be working in the United States if the returns from working are high enough and thats going to mean more things happening here in the United States. You know, so again, its not like its a single Silver Bullet here. People have to have skills, have to want to work and i think that generally people want to work. And many people have skills and not everyone has the skills they need in the economy and things to work on but i do think, again, not the day of the bill signing or the next week or month but i do think that tax reform along the lines of whats discussed is more likely than not to lead to more investment in the United States and more employment. Brady Just Announced to show everybody the thing on november 1st. So well theyll start the Committee Hearing and will have a bill to work off of. Its pretty good and impressive. I think one of the big beneficiaries is that the politics of the United States is going to get easier and nicer with strong Economic Growth. When you have bad, lousy Economic Growth, last eight years, 2 growth, the weakest recovery we have had in modern history and everyones grumpy because they dont have jobs and not able to move and people have been leaving the labor force during a recovery. The Labor Force Participation is going down. Not supposed to happen in a recovery. Supposed to go up. And you six taking in account people not looking anymore because theyve given up is still an ugly number. Not a good number. And if we get the growth that i think that we should get from this that we saw out of the reagan years, i know, you guys are too young to remember this but reagan cut taxes in 83, january of 83, about 4 million jobs created that year. 1 million in october. Thats an economy two thirds the size of ours. Labor force. 6 million jobs created in 1 year for the growth you had coming out of reagan years including deregulation changes but the trump administrations been doing some very helpful things on deregion lags, as well. I think thiss the unfold story. 50 years from now i think people say the tax cut was big and deregulation a large part of the growth that flowed from that. Why do people get grumpy about International Trade and immigrants . When theres lousy Economic Growth and then they think they dont have a job because an immigrant took it or somebody soeld us something inexpensively. The rat. How could they do that to us . When we have strong economic, people are cheerful about International Trade because they see themselves as beneficiaries both as workers and the immigrant is not somebody that took the job because i have a job and my brother has a job and it just makes for a much less grumpy electorate and i think you will see not just economic benefits but everyone will smile more. I hope im afraid thats all we have time for. I hope you leave the room smiling today. Id just like to thank alex, grover and chris and if you could all join me in giving the usual applause. Thank you. I think we have one quick announcement from peter . Yes. For those of you tax and health care in the portfolios, we will be doing an event around here. Might be this room or the next one over november 15th, a wednesday, on liberating telemedicine and well have two people participating in that one. Hope to see you soon. Thank you. Earlier today the house narrowly approved the 2018 budget resolution. It pave it is way for tax cuts of up to 1. 5 trillion over the next decade. But it also increase it is deficit by about the same amount. The vote was 216212 with all democrats and 20 republicans voting against the republican budget plan. House ways and Means Committee chair kevin brady says hell introduce the republican tax bill by november 1st. Hes also planning on a Committee Markup of the legislation on november 6th. Well, today marks 50 years since john mccains airplane was shot down and he was taken p. O. W. In vietnam. Cspan spoke with senator mccain about his military service, his imprisonment in vietnam and the legacy of the war. Our interview with senator mccain is on cspan tonight starting at 8 00 eastern. Hillary clinton, amazon Ceo Jeff Bezos and tennis star Billie Jean King will attend a dinner taking place here in washington, d. C. This weekend. Cspans live coverage starts on saturday. And then coming up sunday, defense secretary mattis and secretary of state tillerson will testify before congress about authorization for the use of military force overseas. That hearing gets under way at 5 00 p. M. Eastern monday and also live on cspan. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. The House Judiciary Committee this week is working on two immigration bills. Yesterday, the committee debated amendments to those bills. The agriculture guest worker act. Virginia congressman goodlatte chairs the judiciary committee. Good morning. The committee will reconvene. When the committee recessed yesterday we were considering amendments to hr 4092 and the gentleman of california