I'm glad you're here, and I'm glad you're here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you for coming here.
As you all know, he's trying to do something now for public,
because it's harder than kidding.
I've said that in Richmond, and that is in that disaster tomorrow.
So are you ready for some part of all of this?
Yes, sir.
As long as we can start with the acknowledgement that I'm wearing my astros,
it's time.
All right, so let's start with the easy one.
Is the House going to pass the Senate version of the budget bill?
I think so, yes.
We're in a good position.
I think the more the Senate did, and ought to be applauded,
and Chairman Black, the Chair of our Budget Committee,
worked with the Senate on incorporating some of our ideas.
And so, I feel real good about where we're headed on this week,
which, with Carl's cell rates for us,
actually formed by several weeks, I guess,
so I think it's done because that is,
we've decided to move a little bit.
We'll announce both the date of the markup
and the date that the Acton Bill tax will be released.
So once it's done, we're going to move.
I should have introduced myself, and Carl Cannon,
Washington D.R.C., real quick politics.
If you know real quick politics, you know that we're not partisan.
So let me ask you a question that's sort of an argument in the House.
The budget, you know, passing the budget first
that it's passed for,
is so you can use the reconciliation process
and where the bill was from the Senate.
But reconciliation is a Washington word.
It's in, the process doesn't,
in normal English, reconciliation is not what it is.
What it is is one party rule.
And the budgets have been passed this way since 1993.
And I'm asking you this sort of a good government question.
Is that really the way it should be?
Shouldn't it be both parties?
There's nothing more, there's no more equation
of the fact that it's 30% or 37%.
So why shouldn't both parties participate?
Well, moving through reconciliation doesn't preclude Democrats
for engagement in this process.
It just ensures no one party in the Senate
can block this from getting this to the President's desk.
And so, you know, I'm hopeful that we can,
I know in the House side that we spent the last year
reaching out and listening to our Census Democrats
but what's important to them in tax form
because I think they're seeing the same thing we are
which is a lot of young people coming out of school
can't find their paying jobs.
They're seeing the same companies we see
moving their jobs and headquarters and research overseas.
And so I think we share a lot of the goals
of getting this economy moving again.
I want to predict that we'll attract Democrat votes in the end.
I think the time we're spending with Susan Dometty
and others, we're bringing, I think, perfectly good ideas
to the discussion.
I think it's time we'll spend it.
So right now the White House is endorsed a plan
with these three tax brackets.
It's 12% 20% by 35%.
On Friday, your predecessor,
of the powerful House of Representatives,
could meet on Paul Ryan throughout the idea
of being a fourth bracket.
This is something that's been floating.
I guess we could call it the Max Scherzer tax bracket already.
George Starr has said that Donald Trump
and the Lippit family bracket put him down.
My question, where does it start?
What do you mean? What are we talking about today?
So I do want to get ahead of our committee's work.
But I want to do it.
So is there one in this room?
So I do want to get ahead of them.
We are considering it as the framework
with the President and Senate
that tax writers laid out.
We are looking at a bracket.
Our focus is on delivering a very pro-road,
middle-class tax cut and designs a code
that grows economy and paychecks in a major way.
So we are looking at it from that perspective.
Could a fourth bracket help us deliver
that growth in that middle-class tax cut?
We're still in the work until they conclude the design.
Paul Ryan hinted that the rate would be
39.6% in this fourth bracket,
which is the top bracket now.
Bob Ratty?
That's some good decisions to make on that.
Well, you have declined quite as you're doing it here
to say where does the bracket start exactly.
And I think this one question I had,
is that because you don't know
and you're still working out the numbers
and you can't make the numbers come out?
Or is it because you don't want people to take the pots up
as you're planning?
It's because, unlike the Reagan style reforms,
we model off a lot of this after.
The rates alone don't develop all too well.
Because we are eliminating AMT,
because we are eliminating the state tax,
and because we are making sure our small businesses,
our actions aren't left behind,
those interact with those higher rates
differently than just the rate tax.
So we want to make sure that we are delivering
top to bottom relief
so that Americans keep more aware of what they earn.
We want to make sure we know the interaction of all that.
So it's just a case of being thoughtful
and making sure we know the real impact
before we set the levels
and where the bracket is.
When Democrats talk about this,
they talk about parents.
And that's something that I think most people care about.
But it gets complicated, as you pointed out.
If you make $400,000 a year in Rapid City, South Dakota,
that's more money than it can make for any thousand individuals.
So how are you going to finesse this?
And I'm thinking now, of course, of several things,
but one of them is the deduction of your state tax.
Yeah, no, it's a true question.
So we're focused on growth of paychecks and jobs
and the lead problem of America
into the lead-packed worldwide is
they're surprisingly fairest place to be rolled in that growth.
Because you just imagine the tax code,
so fair and simple, nine out of ten Americans
are finally using a postcard-style system.
There is a fairness to knowing what everyone's deductions are
because we have to use exactly the same ones.
Another reason we haven't set those brackets yet
and the rates are bad,
we all work with law makers from the high-tech states
to ensure that their tax pays are better off
from tax reform than before.
And so, because we're eliminating the number of those deductions,
that should place into what will those final rates in the brackets be.
So it's just a matter of making sure we're hitting our goals,
including fairness in growth before we set it.
Right, so please take, if you live in West Virginia,
in Harpers Ferry,
and you're a co-worker, you work at a plant,
you're a co-worker in a lot of economy,
you're a co-worker right across the river,
in Maryland.
If you get rid of the state local tax grade,
then one person has got a tax cut,
they've got a tax increase.
These two people work side by side.
One pays a higher federal rate.
Tax doesn't seem fair.
You're describing the current tax cut.
I can't think you are at the different points.
So depending on whether you're itemizing or not,
so this is a really good question for taxing.
So we can stick with the status quo,
where we keep the federal tax rates artificially high
for all Americans,
so some can use their itemizing taxes,
including 60% of all people.
And while we do that, we just subsidize each other.
So rural communities, tax payers, subsidized cities,
middle class and subsidized higher owners,
low tax states, subsidized higher tax states,
that's the status quo.
Or we can do something different.
We can lower taxes for all Americans,
and we just pay our own.
So for the first time,
watch this punish or reward you
based on where you choose to live and work.
It is a big change from where we're at today.
And the reason why,
I think it's critical we find solutions
for lawmakers in the high tax states.
We want their fame to be better off.
Let me ask a philosophical question about it.
Well, after a four-minute season of LNA,
who's on the intermediate now,
that's a great job.
And she's running a blue state, a Washington state.
On the panel, I'd like to see more of what's on the panel
as a conservative.
So we're going to ask them,
but there seems to be,
you know, we seem to coverage of it.
Are we punishing the blue state voters?
Is the tax...
Are you sure that there's nothing in this tax debt
that the politics are completely eliminated?
We're not promoting states
that support Republicans,
they can't get in conversely?
Punishing, using the Senate to get the state votes
taxes to come down to,
because those are not going to be my question.
Is that fair?
Well, I think this is a political fact
so people go to political motives.
I think in this case they're wrong.
Because from a fair standpoint,
you know, constructing worker 12-in-way
on the first floor of a building
who doesn't itemize as pretty modest as the income
is paying the higher tax rate.
So the investment banker
renting the highest floor
can get the tax rate.
Why don't we stop doing that?
Why don't we treat them equally in tax debt?
Why don't we lower those rates for everybody?
So it is, in my view,
a certain amount of moral viewpoint
in ways that means committee,
and how stop it before we put the better wage
into a tax-loan plan at the beginning
to go red or blue state.
We want to dramatically grow jobs,
pay checks in the U.S.
and leave progress to that lead tax
and do it in a way that people can.
One of the ideas that's been floated
in the last few days
about trying to make this
state-level tax deduction
fair to try to raise the revenue
but not have the tax return.
That is to put a count of $400,000
in the number I heard.
Does that sound like an object to you?
$400,000 in the price.
In New York?
In New York.
I'll tell you, it stuns me
how high
property taxes and sales taxes
are in these high-taxed states.
I'm amazed.
I don't know how families
reply.
And I'm always suspect
that the same local politicians
who've been assessing these high-taxed
are suddenly now concerned
about taxpayers.
My
belief is that
for those families
when we lower
the tax rates,
when we increase the child tax rate,
when we set those brackets
all together,
we can lower their overall
burden
without having that
specific deduction in there.
We're listening to Carl right now
from all makers from those states
on how best to do that.
So I'm hopeful of your...
No, I'm confident you're over the next 10 days
that we'll be pricing these solutions.
So
when we're looking to start with our tax form
cutting in corporate
seems to be one of the most
animated issues.
And you know the arguments you've heard
when we made trillions of dollars
apart from broad corporations
because CMEs don't want to pay,
their friends don't want to pay a 35%
tax rate
I just remind us that
American corporations are the highest-taxed
in the world.
Backcheck.org actually checked out
so yeah, that's pretty crystal clear.
Right?
But do you think...
What's the evidence that cutting that rate
will really bring all that money back here
and that it will convert to nuclear?
Yeah.
That's a fair question.
What we know is
your tax rate will vary depending on where you business at.
Is that if you're an all-American
stay here, sell here
you're paying a full price at 35%.
If you're global, it can vary
dramatically in those rates.
But in the day, they're all
uncompetitive
in the time of Europe, Canada, and Mexico.
So the business round table
at least a study that shows
if our tax rate had been 20%
over the last decade, we would have
4,700 more
businesses in America today
than we have. Because so many have been
acquired or moved
or shipped overseas in a major way.
And we know too
that
we have to change what we're doing
if we want our paychecks to grow.
It's essentially going to stay for a decade.
And even this last round for all
so I think maybe 2.5%,
3% grow in wages
and you think, ah, it's coming back
look closely because
what it showed people who work full time
in America, their paycheck increase
again was zero.
So we know if we make
businesses compare
whether they're competing around the world
or on the mainstream, when you do
full and unlimited expenses
so they can invest in the plants, equipment,
software and technology, all the drive productivity
that drives wages in major ways.
So we really are
in each of these designs focused on the growth
of paychecks and jobs
and I'm
really optimistic
that this design does lead progress
back to that lead pack
and makes our local companies so much more content.
Alright, I've got one more question
and then we're going to open up to the audience.
Are you worried
this doesn't work
that it's a gamble that
it doubled in years in terms of the push
it doubled again in the years of Barack Obama
but this doesn't spur the guy
to really be right to talk about it.
This tax fund, you could double the debt.
So I'm pretty sure the debt
will double if we don't
enact tax.
I think we stick with the slow growth economy.
We're not going to generate
the revenues and growth
that we need for the country.
We also have to double the restraints
spending is more important. We got to make
the entire program
so this is one
key part of getting
our financial house in order
but I know this
we get growth back on track
to our traditional level
or better
it generates significant revenues
not just at the federal level
Carl, but we know from the candy cuts
we know from the raven cuts as well
the communities that saw the greatest revenue growth
were at the state level
because when people go back to work
and the wages are higher
I know there are some states
that wonder how will we be affected
what we know is growth
gains at every level.
I promise the chairman
we'll get him out in a minute.
Thank you.
