i think you can t always get what you want and in fact sometimes you have to give a little and take a little along the way and that s what even republicans are doing on this bill. last comment. if i can say somebody should be concerned about the $20 trillion. as soon as this is passed, they ll come back and ask for more tax credits to be given away for the extenders. if you had true reform you wouldn t need that. in january they ll bust the budget caps because our military, we were all briefed on how desperate the military needs money. bill: if that s the case voters will decide next november. this crossed my desk earlier today. you gave an interview with regard to al franken s eventual resignation. the most that s hypocrisy at the highest level. it made me sick. you are talking about democrats there. i m talking about human
growth. if it s under 2.5, 2.4, you ll so a reduction in the definite situation because more revenue will come in. neil: you know the rap around the house is they have squeezed all of this $5 trillion tax cut to to a $1.5 trillion budget frame work and not making it happen. it s a good structure because it focuses on the pro growth elements we talked about and immediate expenses. i think we ll have more than adequate growth to take care of the relatively smart part, 1.5 out of 44 trillion. we re assuming certain things like the current extenders of taxes won t happen. they always happen. that talks about $500 billion alone out. i feel confident. you ll like the senate bill. i think you ll see as we go through this process, yeah, there will be some partisanship and so on. when you look at the facts, this is good for middle class families and good for small
to assume the baseline for how much taxes come into the government is realistic. by that you keep in place the so-called extenders, particularly the bonus to appreciation. that gives you $450 billion more of tax cuts compared to how the static score would be or the current system. so that s one to get tax cuts. the second is, look at the tax reform proposal. you say what does this mean in terms of people s behavior? let s take for example if you reduce the taxes on businesses for the things that they buy. depreciation. if you give them a faster write off. what will that mean? that will mean there s more economic growth. so that needs to be taken into account that will result in more revenue that is called neil: but if you anticipate with that dynamic type of accounting, you re anticipating that and tag a number to it. is it your sense that the tax cuts we re looking at, let s say for corporations, should be 15%?
clear choice and that s what we re excited to look forward to in 2016. you were aggressive when it comes to pushing you were happy about this. but one of the criticisms from deficit hawks is $700 billion in permanent tax cuts, what you ve done with obamacare is probably going to be these yearly extenders which if it becomes permanent, that s another $250 billion. they re not paid for. that s a trillion in tax cuts not paid for. i completely reject the premise of your point and question which is you don t think tax cuts should be paid for? that s not what this is. these tax policies are in law. we want to keep them in law. by keeping taxes where they are that means we re keeping them where they are. that doesn t mean we re cutting taxes, we re keeping taxes where they are. be was there s an artificial problem in the law that says taxes will raise, not raising taxes is not cutting taxes, it s not raising taxes. so the point i would make is this is not a tax cut as much as
people that gives the country a clear choice and that s what we re excited to look forward to in 2016. you were aggressive when it comes to pushing you were happy about this. but one of the criticisms from deficit hawks is $700 billion in permanent tax cuts, what you ve done with obamacare is probably going to be these yearly extenders which if it becomes permanent, that s another $250 billion. they re not paid for. that s a trillion in tax cuts not paid for. i completely reject the premise of your point and question which is you don t think tax cuts should be paid for? that s not what this is. these tax policies are in law. we want to keep them in law. by keeping taxes where they are that means we re keeping them where they are. that doesn t mean we re cutting taxes, we re keeping taxes where they are. be was there s an artificial problem in the law that says taxes will raise, not raising taxes is not cutting taxes, it s not raising taxes. so the point i would make is this