Lock for these look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for many of the authors in the near future on booktv on cspan2. And so now im very please today introduce tonights author presenting his acclaimed new book, the book that changed america. Randall fuller works at the university of tulsa as well as the author of from battlefields rising. His work has appeared in the new york times, the wall street journal and other publications. Professor fuller is a winner of phi beta kappas award for best literary criticism. The book that changed america how darwins theory of evolution ignited a nation, explores how five luminaries gained new perspectives on the origin of the species in the leadup to the civil war. Thank you very much for the nice introduction. Thanks for coming out on what to oklahoma feels like a chilly night. I realize it is not really that cold. I am really glad to have been invited by the harvard bookstore. I have spent many hours over my professional li
The goal of assuring Economic Growth as part of it, particularly as it is felt by as Many Americans as possible . Is that the tile of goal we should be forcing . Yeah, you want the economy to grow and you want everybody to benefit from that. And when we did this bill, as i said earlier, we had four principles, these are the things you should consider. That the market is a more efficient allocator of resources, the ways and Means Committee and finance figured out we should do this or that activity. Second equal incomes should pay equal tax. It is not fair to have your neighbor pay less because they have a particular tax benefit. And third those who have more should pay more. The progressive principle. And fourth if you can simplify it, please simplify it. To me those are the four principles. The Economic Issues and growth you would want people to move up and say to people at the top you have to pay a little bit more. So i think those are the principles that i would use going forward. Yo
You know, i think that its my question suggests, at least i view it, is that it is a neithernor process but equity on the low reduce the burden on low and middle class is not just morally responsible but about two thirds of the economy is fueled by Consumer Spending and lower and middle class families have a higher percentage that they need and spend on goods and services. So in that respect i think it makes sense to be looking at how the consequences of reform deal with them not just on corporate taxes as well because i think it will fuel spending that will help private sector profits. Senator packwood, at the end of your testimony, in 1983, 1900 people who earned a million or more paid no federal tax and that fact was due to a myriad of special interest loopholes clogging the arteries of the tax code before 86. And as you noted in your testimony, the product that passed the finance committee 200 and would later become law raised the taxes significantly on corporations and rich indivi
Or google or you want to hire real talent, you pay them more because you really need that talent, so that you pay them more to offset the employment tax. If youre working the lumberyard in oregon or somewhere, where theres a surplus of labor, the you dont pay them more to offset it, so the irony is that it ends up hitting the lower paid guy and the lower the struggling industry more than it hits the person whos in the consulting or technology industry. So reducing those employment taxes are have many benefits. For example, 24 Million People or 25 Million People working part time now could very well be brought into the workforce. You could find people that werent working to be brought into the workforce, so thats the good news. The question is, what are you going to use to provide the money to do that . And you know, i know the committee has looked at it. Its probably not possible. But who knows . They said tax reform wasnt possible in 86. You could take a dollar gasoline tax or you cou
Looking, well be following up with the two of you, on the idea that if you triple the standard deduction and a number of senators of both Political Parties are interested in a significant increase in the standard deduction, you dont have so many people itemize and that is another possibility. But well follow up with you on the simplicity issue. I want to wrap up with one last question and that is, is there one thing you regret about what happened in 86 and you would counsel us in terms of what to do in the future . In other words, it is always easy to think about what is possible today in the abstract, but you two went through it. Anything you regret and you would like us to change . I know that one thing i regret about 86 and i was june a junior, Junior Congress person is senator bradley is right when he says no Current Congress can permanently bind a future congress from unraveling it but you can make it really hard. Can you put people through multiple votes and the like. So i can th