really pretty moderates on both sides. we hope so. you know, and being able to say we know where we want to go on the tax code. we agree that the corporate tax code is complex, that we give tax deductions that are no longer necessary, that can go way which would then lower the rate or should be using some other way that incentivizes the future, economic competitiveness that you need and that you want. if we can get there, we can't get there if there's this notion that they consider revenues for future economic growth. we consider revenues both actual dollars coming into the government and economic growth. and without those dollars to meet our obligations, even as we cut government, and we have, even as we look for cost containment everywhere, and we have, that we ask we do still have some responsibilities to

each other and to our economic competitiveness in the future. >> so there is a great divide here. it is not new. is something we've been talking about for well more than a year, two years at this point. but there's some dangerous undertones. these things have become defining issues for both parties. the democrats raising taxes on the wealthy has in some ways become a defining issue, especially in the campaign fourth the republicans, no new revenue has become a defining issue. spent and more cuts. >> how is that going to affect your ability to work towards a deal by the end of this year? can you rule off of what has been not only a rhetorical platform is something that has affected the way you negotiate? >> okay, so one of the premise of your question though is that somehow the gop is arguing don't have any new revenue. and this was debated between the candidates the other evening. i think the point earlier, we had set the premise that geneva

revenues. we reject the premise that the only to get more revenues is by raising taxes. i would argue -- son back. that if democrats say look, we are interested in more revenue, the pathway republicans have described, we think it makes sense, we're willing to negotiate and willing to learn, there's -- and president obama's -- the house minority put forward, we're not seeing any budgets obviously from the senate, but there are growth assumptions. let's go in and explore those. but somehow this notion that the only way to get more revenue to the federal government is by raising taxes is a choice that we don't think is robust, and historically it has been one that people have come to only reluctantly. and so we're single, we both

agree there's reluctance to raise taxes, that let's not go there as the first place and let's explore every other equal opportunity. i think there is an opportunity to look at this growth model. carriages. let's do that. now, the bottom line is the election on november 6 is going to have a huge disposition on this question. and it's my hope that we can forgo the drummer around fiscal cliff, that we can move the sequestration of the house is done, that we can bridge, extend the race for another year and move this debate and tax reform -- the november 6 election will be consequential in terms of the energy that comes out of that election at the trajectory of for the public wants to go. >> i want to stick with this for one minute. i understand the argument for revenue via growth, but how

strong will the no new tax revenue position be during the lame-duck session within the republican caucus? >> very strong. so, first from the president, the president, if elected he will have a second term. if he is not reelected they will not be a president until janua january 1, 21st until inauguration day. [inaudible] peace demonstration we say a great deal of flexibility. we think that based on mixed signals coming from the democratic side, and the clear signals that are coming from the republican side, that you will see, you know, the idea that i think president obama signs the extension of the current rate for another year, and my opinion is the only way --

[inaudible] >> let me just say, it is true, most of it, i will say from myself and we don't want to raise taxes. but as pete pointed out, the issue is do we extend tax cuts are not, for some americans? in order to meet our obligations and to be able to make sure we can reduce the deficit and that is something we don't want to do. we do believe, well, that, in fact, raising taxes on millionaires, start there if you want, and it really would produce some income for increasing revenues and not hurt the economy at all. that, in fact, going from 35% to 39% is not going to undo the economy and bring some important revenue for us to meet our obligations. that's what the president has proposed. that seems somewhat reason the way to go but it did not work under the bush years, so let's begin do what we already agree

on which is to extend middle-class tax cuts. we don't believe in supply-side economics. we don't believe in triple -- trickle-down economics. we do believe in making money do. we're perfectly happy with the fact that americans come we want to encourage more americans to be successful and to make money and to be prosperous, and then to pay taxes into what we do jointly. and that's the difference. if you want to use it, teach terminology, we are not raising anyone's taxes. we are just not extending tax cuts on a small group of americans who have additional money to potentially give us a few extra percentage points, because we need the money. if we did and, if the deficit wasn't an issue, if the republicans don't care about the deficit, that's not real to them, that we will be able to steal do what we believe has to happen for economic growth and that is to put more money in middle-class americans pockets so that they buy more products. something companies can meet

that demand. that's what we look at it. that unless you have consumer demand, that, in fact, it doesn't matter what kind of -- it makes you want to make more products. so it's a different economic philosophy. we think under the bush years, if you noticed we actually did actually end up with a very troubled economy and deep recession, that if it worked, if their principles work, but that economic growth that is talking about, that mitrani's.net, a paul ryan is talk about works, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in four years ago. i think he believed the. if we want to get serious about competitiveness for corporate america in the future, you have all talked to me about the fact that you'd like to see lower rates. you want to be more competitive in the global marketplace. we have to bring down the cost of health benefits which is what we're doing by bringing down, by demanding better competition and cost containment to the health care sector across both private and public sector, that you need

cheaper energy, that you need a skilled workforce, that you need airports and rail networks. and that you can do without all those things just on your own. that's what you said. you said you're willing to give up the tax deduction for the, if not all of them. at the notion that this concept which we have lived through several decades now, that if you just reduce the taxes, more so on the wealthiest americans, the middle income americans on their own with fewer dollars in their pockets, if you hold them hostage again by not extend the tax cuts, if you hold corporate america hostage by not actually reaching agreement on taxes to the future, it's put you in a much more difficult position to do the kind of plan, the kind of growth that you would like both here in the united states what we'd like, and, of course, the work that you do in selling products across the world. so i think this rhetoric is

really just that, unless you believe you want to decimate the federal government and all of the obligations and expectations you and our middle-class families expect. >> i think there's a flaw in the argument that allyson is just articulating. a subtle point, but the subtlety is worth reviewing. so on the one hand, bad arguments as well, easy raise the taxes, then that money is so not going to be the remedy to increase infrastructure and broadband and so forth and all l of these things, and that money will go bridge that gap. but on the other hand, balancing against that is the ernst & young study that says if you tax rates expire, then what will happen is it will cost 7000 jobs. look, i'm talking you to today from the state government which is the state not have to govern.

[laughter] [inaudible] >> that is, raise taxes. it is change the entrepreneur class out of illinois. wisconsin, indiana and iowa and ohio and michigan are doing much better than us. you've got higher than average unemployment. we have more per capita debt than any state in the union, and this is the playbook. i think the argument before, when president obama's said the private sector is doing just fine, [inaudible] he is using the state of illinois as a foundation point. so what we are saying is let's not, don't mess with this. don't trifle with this. it doesn't close the budget gap, raising these taxes will teach you about two weeks of revenue under the obama current spending trajectory. don't fall into that trap.

[inaudible] and even president obama, you know, back in the '09 cycle, the raise taxes during a recession, and president obama was basically using the argument that i've made essentially, and now that's not his current position obviously, but are we not in a recession right now? technically we are not. [inaudible] we are growing at about 1%. but let's not do anything to put a very tender footed economy back in anymore jeopardy. it really makes the argument that the remedy that grows the economy and create more expansion and people willing to invest more is somehow raising taxes. >> let me just say, we don't think that's the end all be all but we do think we have to have

that on the table, that it actually won't hurt the economy. we've also been saying, i think we agree on this, keith has said the economic recovery, we sing economic growth the last 32 months, you know it's not a strong as we like but it's a whole lot better than we were four years ago in losing jobs 500,000, 6-under thousand, 700,000 jobs a month. we would like to be growing them faster, of course would. it's a slow recovery but it is recovery and we would agree with you that i think there's been a lot of openness on the part of democrats and certainly the white house that what we do in the next your we've been pretty careful in what we are looking at is a long-term discussion. how do we handle tax policy. look, i think how to get to the series discussion you want us to have. spent a long-term discussion is something would like to get to and until we get past the bush tax cuts was resolve those, let's extend the ones to the middle-class, let's not extend the ones to the very wealthiest

americans. it's not going to hurt our economy. then let's have a serious conversation about both individual and corporate taxes for the future. >> long-term discussion has to talk about the other side of the ledger. we've been talking a taxes. we do need to talk about entitlement spending. we have to go to questions and then we'll come back and talk about entitlement and the kind of flexibility the democratic caucus would give, a sunni, reelected president obama to make the cut deals that were on the table two years ago. we have a question right here. >> congressman roskam, you signed a nordqvist pledge. how can you possibly come to any kind of compromise without being the one congressman out of, i don't how many, that would have to break the pledge to come to a compromise with democrats? >> if you been listening, i'm not contemplating -- what i'm saying is you can pursue revenues, revenues are abundant.

[inaudible] where mitt romney spoke directly to present obama about this. the president said you don't want revenues? ann romney said i do want revenues. the way for revenues is through growth. that's a conversation allyson and i've been having for the past 20 minutes. i think there is consistency there. so i don't plan on raising taxes on anybody. >> another question? >> [inaudible] would that be breaking the pledge? >> there are so me double negatives going on right now. [laughter] >> a little flexibility reach agreement. >> allyson, you know me. i would love to work on an agreement. >> congressman, isn't a pledge to the citizens of illinois and not to the citizens, not to one person? that's one thing that a lot of people who aren't in favor of the pledge and can't understand is that you should be serving

her constituents and not one man. >> i appreciate that and i appreciate the encouragement. i've been reelected three times to congress and to think it's looking very strong right now. the voters will make that determination. >> another question from the audience. >> then let's go to this question of entitlement. let's assume for a moment that president obama wins reelection. how much flexibility to deal on entitlement for the democratic caucus allow him? >> i would say it starts with our commitment to meet the promise of medicare and social security. that has to be the beginning of the debate. we will not accept turning medicare into a voucher, premium support, whatever you want to call it. that is a nonstarter for us. we feel -- it's the beginning premise is that we will not shift the cost of essentially completely almost, the

increasing cost to individual seniors and their families. and i think we can have a discussion. i think we also have to begin the discussion with the fact that what has been said i both mitt romney and paul ryan and all of the republicans that the affordable care act, affordable care act hurt medicare, is also a nonstarter for us because they know what the reality is. one is that republicans and paul ryan use the same $700 billion in cuts to shoot insurance covers and providers in their budget. what we've done is put ourselves on a path towards greater solvency and medicare, towards containing the rate of growth and cost of medicare, to improve delivery system reform. so if we can start with a discussion of how we best reduce the cost in medicare, which is through delivery system reforms, that is important to all of us. that can also have an effect on the private sector and reducing costs for health coverage are

all americans. but it's got to start with a different premise and we are far apart from the prince. and, of course, republicans a racially walked away, incumbents walked away from the original vote for the ryan budget but then they voted again and now many of them have embraced the notion that what we should do is to in medicare as we know it and make it, say the dollars for the government and elite seniors and families more on their own. 6000 are in the first year or two, obviously going up from the. i think that's a nonstarter. by do think that if we could reach agreement, that's a big if, on the fact that medicare is important to our seniors and their families, that it can work, but what have the dollars to make it work, are the ways that we can ensure that it is, you know, that we actually makes sure its solo for for years and years and years? there's discussions we could have but is not yet a discussion we could have. >> also worried the use see a

need for democrats to move on medicare? [inaudible] republicans care about medicare and want to solve, that is, we care about medicare and we want to make sure it is all the. [inaudible] inc. in 12 years. that is the time in which medicare trustees testified before the ways and means committee that medicare will reach in solvency. well, there was a serious effort on the part of the several major initiatives over the past couple of years to bring clarity to this issue, we saw the disco commission, we thought the negotiations around the so-called grand bargain. i think what's got to happen is president obama needs to step into -- [inaudible] what he's got to do communism [inaudible] there was a recognition the president had about not

embracing the house gop approach but recognizing that it's that program, the fact that 10,000 seniors, 10,000 boomers are retiring every 24 hours but and health care inflation is outpacing regular inflation significantly and is continuing to happen not withstanding the passage of the new health care law. so i think what's got to happen is president obama needs to step in any way that he has not done that in the past. that's been his prerogative. he's the president of the united states, but if you want to have a transformational moment as a country, if we want to come together around a shared premise, that it is the entitlement program largely that are driving these budget questions and are beginning to crowd out other things, and, indeed, the president of the united states really need to play a leadership role. and it's not a leadership role i've seen. i think the country needs from present obama for the past four

years. i served for four years with president obama when he was a state senator. what i saw there was an attribute and barack obama, then a state senator, working really across party lines in a very fair way. he and i worked together on controversial death penalty reform legislation that we were able to pass state senate and the state house unanimously, and it was signed by the governor. i use that as a touch point when president obama came to the house republican retreat a couple years in baltimore, and i said, mr. president, that style of governance is so successful, and it's my hope that he goes back to that. and i know he has it in them. >> president obama has created, has led by being willing to talk

to both sides of the aisle. the number of times he and the republicans to the white house, the number of times he has said i don't want to dictate exactly how you do this. this is our goal, let's talk about this. that's exactly president obama's leadership's topic you both say is that leadership because he didn't dictate to congress exactly how to do things. and then you just praise him for being open to find common ground. i actually think that's a good, i think that's an important acknowledgment that you just make, which is great but the fact is that we do recognize that there are serious costs under medicare. 10,000 new senior today, probably some of you in the audience who are baby boomers, but, in fact, and paul ryan says it won't be there for him, he's actually not quite correct because really the baby boomers are not going to last forever, although we're going to try. you know, the fact is that this is a demographic and a per capita problem. the demographics are daunting for the next 20, 25 years. you have another 40 million

seniors coming online, then we go away at some point. and it's hard for me to acknowledge that, but for those were 35 or 45 now, that is not going to be the same problem. so let's look at the reality of medicare, actually being lower cost in a lot of ways in private health insurance, that, in fact, we have seen the rate of growth in the health care not grow as good as the. we have we're seeing double-digit growth, double digit growth for premiums for copies who pay health benefits and, of course, for governments high costs. we need to rein that in. there are ways to do that. we want to be very aggressive about as a matter of fact, and we are. and so, we need to also make some conditions here. and again, the conditions are that medicare has worked and social security has worked for seniors in this country. it is something that was the are already over 65 of whether you're 55 or whether you're 45, you actually do anticipate, and

a plan for medicare been there for you. it would be enormously disruptive in this country to have it go away, to shift those costs to those families. we need to recognize that. do we work to do it together to make sure, to pay for, that prescription drug coverage, which was unpaid for under george bush come which many -- how do we actually filling that gap if the affordable care act is repealed on day one the way mitt romney says? all that goes back to seniors individual families, and we're not close that gap. so there's a huge divide here. if republicans are serious about working with the president and working with democrats to preserve medicare, truly preserve medicare, not to just say we're for medicare but we're going to then turn it over to individual seniors, i think there are ways we can have a discussion about how to contain the rate of growth and cost per

capita, and deal with what is going to be a serious problem from the budget for the next 25 years. >> contest and roskam, you're going to get the last word spent i think there's so many descriptions of medicare that i would disagree with. but let me talk about what i do agree with. where we have an opportunity is for president obama to be willing to reevaluate how he's conducted himself under the first presidency. [inaudible] what do i mean by that? the barack obama i served with when we were negotiating, it was very much a negotiation. so i was able because i'm coming from a conservative point of view, i was able -- [inaudible] and push them into law, we need your help. because of president obama's worldview coming from a liberal point of view, he was able to go to the defense bar and the aclu and push them. together, we are able to do something that was good.

barack obama -- [inaudible] now you vote, and if you look at the woodward though,. [inaudible] it has been a lot of chatter but when it comes down to it, it is you vote for my son. he was disciplined and focused prize there were no republican votes honest in his blanket it turns out on reflection that was a good move. it was largely underperform. democrats not running on this. so i am not interested in reliving the past. but what i'm saying is, i think we need to see an attribute from president obama that is more clear, that recognizes john boehner he has a willing partner to try to sit down and negotiate. i felt he has learned from experience from the debate, sort of a high stick adventure, and

he is able to say look, we're not going to do that again. i recognize from john boehner the type of style, so i can negotiate with and work with and bring john boehner a long, rather than do things, just vote for my son. [inaudible] >> thank you both for coming. [inaudible] >> then we went back to this conference, couldn't get there. we have work to do, pete, really did come into the beyond the rhetoric and hopefully the election will make absolutely clear what the american people are hoping for us to do in the way we tackle both the fiscal cliff at the end of the year, then obviously future tax reform. >> thank you both for joining us. [applause] >> thank you. that was a terrific panel. our next keynote interview this morning while we're getting the stage reset is the honorable john dingell, president of the business roundtable which is an

association of chief executive officers of the leading u.s. corporations who have a combined workforce of nearly 60 million workers and more than 7 trillion in annual revenues. a former three term governor of michigan he assumed the leadership of the art in general 2011 him after serving six years as president and ceo of the national association of manufacturers. without apple turned back over to christen. >> thank you for coming. >> glad to be here. >> i'm going to try again. let's talk about what can be done. >> sure. there's a lot that can be done, and it's time to get it done. we, in march of this year, the ceos of the business roundtable put our plan taking action for america, the ceo plan for jobs and economic growth. the plan is still good. taking action part, well, we are still waiting. i think what can be done in the short term, and we looked at the

lame duck history, it's pretty dismal, going back to the '30s, not much it's done in a very but i think in the short term you conservative the fiscal cliff, and i described the fiscal cliff a sort of this, we've got a peak time in front of us. we need to get the tax rates dealt with. with 60 tax rates, 60 provisions on tax cut expire after and of 2011. there's 40 or so more scheduled to go this year. we really don't even have a tax would in the country to speak out. it's all in pieces and all expiring. you've got to get some certainty you're trying to file a 2012 tax return can you don't even know if some of these provisions that expired ink 11 are going to be there. do you file and how to file amended returns? how does that were? congress has to do its job. sequestration isn't going to work so we've got to get the budget at least the 2012, '13 budget some clarity, the

secretary of defense has made it very clear that you can't have the defense, department sequestration and have a big negative impact on national security. deal with it. i would throw in the deal with the debt ceiling, although some have suggested even that is too much for a lame-duck effort. but i would say those are minimal. i don't think they can debate comprehensive tax reform by the end of the year. certainly don't think you can do simpson-bowles plus, but the whole fix the debt campaign which many of our ceos are part of is designed to try to set the table so that 2013 we have the most decisive, most productive legislative session in history because the nation needs it. >> to fix the debt campaign is interesting. there's a lot of people in washington right now talking about a one year bridge to try to provide enough time for both tax and spending reform. the motivating mechanism,

forcing mechanism last time around was the sequester what's the forcing mechanism distant? >> i hope is public pressure. and it's reflected in a lot of ways. congresswoman said that she's waiting for the election to clarify things. i think election clarified a lot actually. i think be on that david walker was on committees been relentlessly around the couch, but he was making the point, they've been doing in debt service. they find over one support among the american people to get something done. and i realized they don't all agree on what it is. i think one thing they do agree on is able to compromise to get there. and i think what's instructed to do in america, look around the country. you see governors, both parties, and sometimes the legislatures of the opposite party, sometimes it's the same, but they are getting things done at the state level, except for the aberration, illinois as a congressman indicate is the path

to get gave a speech yesterday at the detroit economic club and a talk about california being an example of a future that none of us want for our country. they said we don't have to look at greece or spain, just look at california. so we know what lies ahead if we don't get our act together. and i think, i think there's a constituency and i think it's all about leadership. as a former governor, i make him it was just not the case that i could go to the legislation to i consider my ideas, legislators, i hope you can give me something that will work. leadership starts at the top in an organization. the chief executive has to lead. >> we've seen and we saw in this conversation here, an unwillingness for both sides to move off of their points. we've seen over the past few weeks a lot of talk about going over the cliff. we saw schumer last week start to throw some cold water on avenues that have been viewed as, or potential around these issues.

are you reading this as an inability to advance the ball? >> i certainly hope senator schumer was a one off for purposes of the fall campaign, and that that is an action way things because that was very unhelpful coming from a leader in the senate. maybe will be the leader in the senate. i think that it starts, and senator schumer is in a poor position being in the majority today, because where is their budget? where's their program? they've been three years without passing on, and i know the excuses it's hard. yeah, it is hard. governing is hard. and compromising its art. but it's one thing, i think it's clear thing from tumors of the cars, the house, the house ask where one party or the other part is in charge. they actually do things. the senate has to cooperate and they been unable.

and how do you break that -- i think it starts, and we have example in the first two years of the obama administration where come with control of the house and senate senate and the white house, consolidated one party. they did things where you can look back and say boy, there's flaws and weaknesses in the affordable care act or in dodd-frank, but they muscled them through. but once the house was lost, that effort to begin to muscle things through went awry, and you didn't have the same efforts being made in the senate you did before. so i just think you've got to get can we've got to get the election behind us. that's another. there's no session until that happens. but once it does, what's really important to understand is that there's a lot of weakness economically around the world today, and i think the ceos of some of the largest american companies look at this -- this is an opportunity for america, but not an opportunity that's to

be taken for granted. not one that is assured. it's an opportunity, and you have to act, yet he sees it, and that means you do have to deal with i think the long-term fiscal problems. you certainly have a tax structure in the nation that is not competitive globally any longer. again, in this economic speech yesterday, since i was in detroit, literally across the river is canada with a 15% corporate tax rate. they are the nation that has in place sometime very robust and sinister research and development, and they fix the immigration laws. so the talent access globally is there for them. what a competitive advantage they have. plus i think they are right much more than we been on energy strategy. it is an opportunity for us, and the first half a century could still be very much an american century, but i think the decisions we will make an early

parts of 2013 are going to be the determining and decisive factors. >> steve mentioned a speech yesterday. nspg talk about uncertainty. jamie dimon last week in washington talked about uncertainty. there's very little empirical evidence that uncertainty about washington policy is one's really holding businesses back from spending and investing. help me understand what you're saying. >> sure. what you are seeing i think is dumb and i actually agree with the evidence. i think it's this but i think it's a very tepid recovery we're in. very low gdp growth rate, very -- i would say slow, nonexistent hiring in some sectors. we do a survey every quarter of our ceos, about three ago we reported this quarter, and we have done it for 10 years.

we have the third sharpest decline in the 10 year history. our index only measures three things. we ask ceos, looking ahead, do you think, what are your expectations for sales, for hiring and for capital expenditures? the sales have the biggest drop the and so they're worried about revenues. this is where, the congressman made a point about consumer demand. i'll tell you what creates consumer demand is consumers with income, jobs. and when you've got high unemployment and you've got, and the low participation in the workforce is a factor here, that kind of gets glossed over all the time, but people aren't in a workforce that means they don't have income. so they are without income. the people are trying to work get high unemployment rate so they are without income. that does have an impact on jobs, and i think the uncertainty shows up in projects that get deferred. it shows up in, i think frankly

you can look at the balance sheets and say, there's a lot of cash on hand, why wouldn't people be spending it? it's certainly no great bargain to go buy treasuries with the. there's no return there. why not put that money to work? the other question is where? i talked to a fellow that runs a company, a $10 million mine up in alaska. it's copper and gold. it's a project that is supported by democrat and republican senators from alaska. it has a lot to offer in terms of potential, impact, you know. the epa in this case i should come its and army corps decision to permit it but the epa being helpful decided to create a model of the mind. the model of environmental compliance and found that the model failed. and took the position it should

be permitted by the army corps. well, you know, we don't need that kind of help. i mean, we understand america -- but we are take a lot longer than rest of the world, and virtually everywhere else of the world is trying to figure out how to get yes, not trying to come up with a scenario that would fail before we get out of the gate. >> but there's a lot of uncertainty, but why do you see i'm spent cash on the balance sheet as a reflection of uncertainty about washington policymaking, about tax policy, about regulation and that uncertainty about the slow down in china, the crisis and the eurozone? >> that's all part of it. there's no question. i think everybody in the room would say look, if i had some money to invest, where would i put it? and then think through what factors would go in your mind. you want to know, first of all, am i going to build a kid my principle, am i not going to

lose my money? where can i put it, maybe a little return on? europe? china? yeah, they are growing still pretty fast but they're still have income again, i don't know, seven, 8% growth but that is slowing down. it may be less than that because the data over there is that sometimes a little opec. the u.s., well, where. well, let's see. then you start to wonder, market, that's been actually not bad but then you say, there's a lot of debt. i would have that gets paid back someday? are they going to tax the company i've invested in? are they going to tax this kind of activity? i know, maybe they will triple the dividends, tax. i bought the stocks that pay. so in other words, i can't even as an individual investor perhaps answer this question.

imagine a company that says well, is my corporate rate going to go from, it's already higher than ever else in the world, but will that go up more? we know it's going to go up a little bit because the affordable care act has tax increases that are unavoidable. if we took a medical technology industry, we're the number one in the world of the, technology, what do we do to the industry? we put billions of dollars of new taxes on the and we keep them subjected to an fta which is about two years slower than in the everywhere else around the world. meanwhile, britain and other saying hey, come over here. we can speed up the approval process and their tax return last. >> the business community unlike the individual investor is quite good at it, has been quite good at judging risk, at calculating the potential cost of possible changes through regular policy framework. let's just look at this election. waiting for results from the

presidential. we have a 40% chance of romney now winning the election spent probably more like 50. >> okay. on financing your business is calculate that improved odds and start to make investments in this core? >> some would suggest that there's an uptick in the stock market that people have already started say things are going to get better with a romney administration. but no, it hasn't happened yet. and that's a problem with so much of this is that yes, you can create a risk model, but there's so many variables in the model today. i mean, look what we did to confidence. i mean, the united states was always a aaa credit nation. we got downgraded last, little while. well, some of that we set up for ourselves with the behavior on the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling. that was its own, i guess many fiscal cliff. that when we first came up

against that and we dawdled. that's money we've already spent. there's no option if you're a conservative or very liberal, the debt ceiling has to be able to accommodate the spinning we've already, you know, encourage. so to scare creditors the way we did was outrageous, and hopefully we can avoid that any future. but all we need is a credible path. i mean, the trustees on the medicare system, i mean for there's nobody really failing their credibility. they are people have looked at this thing over the years and they're saying the current system is unsustainable. so it has to be changed. again, whether you have one type of you or another type of you, i think i've i think there could be no dispute, it has to change. >> you are raising the core issue here, which is the political will, we are in to a fresh round of warnings from credit rating agencies, that the

united states will face another downgrade if they don't show a lease the political will to do something to get the country back on a sustainable path. from your conversation with members of congress are they taking this more seriously this time? >> yes, i think they are. i think there's endless rounds of conversation occurring among members of congress. i mean, senators are going all over town looking for rings the median. they're going to mount vernon. they tell us they are working hard, some said i need a couple hours in the backroom come we have a back room for them anytime they needed. i think this business of an aging so now we're going to have a bottom-up consensus, but even at the bottom of is from non-leadership members of a legislative body as a seen as the united states senate, or the house, is probably a lot of wishful thinking. i mean, i do believe that there is a fertile ground to be

worked. but i just, i'm hard-pressed when i look at our own nation's history and the great debates and the congress almost all of them had leadership involved at the top. you know, the president wanted to change the civil rights laws. i mean, i guess maybe the fight against the end of the vietnam war may be started it, on the outside, from the bottom and work and eventually it toppled the president. but most of the major debates, the new deal, the reagan revolution, whatever time, i mean, even going back to lincoln stein. i mean, it wasn't, you know, there were great debates in the congress but ultimately the president had to act. and i think that's what's just been absent here, where are the proposals. and will become -- i think that the debates have been, i don't mean since the denver debate or

tonight's debate, but i think the debate in the campaign, in the political arena this year have been moving us closer. .. >> and rejoin us, please, here in a moment for our final two panels. um, i also want to just encourage you to visit nationaljournal.com/events for video of this event and the event we did in april. and then also to join us on november 7th for our day after the election event in which we

will be talking a lot about this issue again. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> okay, terrific. we're going to get started. just ask everybody to finish up getting their coffee and head back to their seats. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. while we're getting started, let me introduce our panel of experts. with us on stage we have rosemary becchi, partner of public policy at patton boggs. john buckley, dr. genesterly, the richard b. fisher chair, and jonathan traub, managing principal tax policy group, deloiotte tax. >> hi, everyone, i'm nancy cook from national journal, and thank you so much for joining us.

all these people represent years of experience on capitol hill and at treasury working on these very complex issues, so i'm very happy that they're here. let's dive right in. we've heard a lot about the election and how it will set the tone for the next, for the fiscal cliff and then also into 2013, and i'm curious to hear from all of you about how the election will serve as a mandate for what needs to happen with this tax and spending policy moving forward. gene, do you want to start? >> well, i'm not sure the collection service is a mandate for what needs to be done, point of fact, i think the election has put us further in a hole as to solving our problem. i have this broad, historical view that traditionally in election time it was time to promise a lot of things to people. you promise what you're going to give away either in the form of tax cuts or in the form of spending increases. and what often gave us a reprieve is that economic growth, basically, would raise revenues, discretionary spending in the old days was basically

flat, and so revenues eventually would rise above spending even if you were a bit profligate right after an election, and that era is gone. we have such an overpromised system. the promise for low taxes, high health growth and high retirement growth which is the big tree, health, retirement and taxes, are not being tackled. and during the election the candidates are promising more in the way of tax cuts that maybe are paid for, or they're promising at least to protect us. you know, those of us over 55 who have half the wealth of the population, we're not going to have to pay anything. so that takes social security and medicare off the table for ten years. we're going to get these additional tax rate cuts, so i think we've just pushed ourselves further in the hole. the bottom line is, is come the beginning of next year, come some point in the next two or three years we have to do a fundamental shift, a fundamental turn around in the election we as voters have to decide who's

going to be able to pull off that turn around, and i don't think you can tell necessarily from just the promises, the promises for more giveaways made in the election. >> yeah, that's a good point. jon, do you feel like, you know, the election and these promises being made put us in the hole, as gene said, or do you feel like they're illuminating some of the ways that people in congress and whoever has the white house next could compromise? >> i think the winners will see as a clear mandate for exactly what they campaigned on. i've never been convinced that a person who's voting once for president, once for a house member and potentially two or three times for senators is able to articulate a clear vision of his or her vision for levels of tax, levels of spending, future growth rates, etc. but the winners will certainly divine out of the results the vision they want. this campaign, i think, has been -- like all campaigns -- some ideas with a whole lot of negative campaigning by both

sides. so whether, you know, how voters then are really casting their votes and what they're voting for, to me, is kind of a mystery. >> yeah. what about this end? do you feel like people will take away certain things from the election on the hill and in the administration? >> you know, i tend to agree with john. i think both sides and depending on who wins will walk away from this election thinking they have a clear mandate, and i really think that that will influence both what happens in the lame duck as well as what happens in the next couple of years. >> john? >> you know, i think regardless what happens in the election you will see action on the fiscal cliff. >> uh-huh. >> i think the election results may change the substance of that response, but i think the chances of action in the lame duck congress are extraordinarily high to push the fiscal cliff forward. regardless of election results. >> uh-huh. >> if you're looking at a long-term basis, i agree with gene that the challenges are

large, and in that respect i'm not certain the election makes all that much difference. i don't think you will see -- you have to define what you mean by tax reform. if you define tax reform as big rate reductions financed by repeal of items like the mortgage interest deduction, i don't think you see that. i think the chances are very low of that occurring. if you define tax reform as additional revenue that is part of a budget deal that is compelled by market forces, i think the prospects are very high. i think the pressure will come from outside in the markets, not necessarily as a result of the election. >> you raise a good point. i mean, so if you feel like something has to be done on the fiscal cliff and it's unclear what exactly that would be, what are the contours of that deal

look like? what actually ends up getting done, what gets pushed to 2013? >> well, i agree with john. it depends who wins as to the substance of what occurs in the lame duck. >> but i think we all agree that something has to happen. i mean, the seriousness of the fiscal cliff really compels people to do something during the lame duck. i mean, the impact -- the bottom line is the huge impact that it might have on jobs going forward, it can't be ignored. >> and we should also just make note of all the items that are in the fiscal cliff. >> yeah. >> people think it's only, say, the extension of the bush tax cuts, and then you have to divide those between the bush tax cuts for the high income which is just a small portion of them versus all of the bush tax cuts, but there's also two items that are already going to come into play which is the new health tax which is actually a tax on capital gains and dividends. there's the ending of the payroll tax cut which looks like it's not going to be extended, so you already have some tax

increases coming along. depending on how you look at it, you could have some or a lot of alternative minimum tax growth, even when we start pushing it out a little bit, we're still allowing a few more people to get onto that. we have the so-called extenders, some of which would be extended, some of which wouldn't. so there's a whole large slew of items that come under this fiscal cliff, and i'm not even starting to count when the debt ceiling has to be increased as well. >> and it's important to note that the amt effects the 2012 return. >> uh-huh. >> so that you almost are compelled to take action this year. it's nothing that you can kick off til next year. it is, it'll be on the 2012 return. so that's why i think there's going to be action in the lame duck. >> yeah. i mean, with all these pieces of the fiscal cliff, um, you know, how are the parties, you know, based on your conversations with people in congress and at the white house, how are the two parties approaching these different pieces, and are there priorities about what people

want to solve at the end of the year versus pushing into the following year? >> i think john's on to an important point which is the amt, and i think some folks have said the fiscal cliff is a down slope, and whether they're right or wrong, they're clearly wrong with respect to amt because i don't know how you put the toothpaste back in that tube. but i think if you go through and look at the parties, you know, the president is going to campaign if he wins re-election, obviously, we have no idea what's going to happen, if he does, he's going to be saying, look, i've been campaigning since 2007 on higher taxes on the wealthy, so i've got this mandate to do it, and the republicans who presumably at least at this point say we're going to hold the house, we've campaigned historically on not raising taxes on small businesses. and then the question is something like the amt, and maybe to gene's point the debt limit, and then, of course, there's nontax components of the fiscal cliff, the sequester, obviously, do they all get mixed

up in a big soup, and the parties are willing to do more on taxes or less on taxes because they're getting a better deal on nontaxed components. when we try to think about it, it's so hard to -- it's so many different things that are going to be rolled, potentially, to a single, big ball of wax at the end of the day. >> -- work on either side. >> i'd like to disagree with the prior speaker. that compromise are come from the congress -- will come from the congress because it will be a development of what can pass. it pains me to say this, john, but i think it comes from the senate. >> so disappointed -- [laughter] >> two former house -- >> that's painful for me to say. >> i disagree with john buckley on so many issues, over so many years we have fought behind closed doors, we fought in the halls -- but to have that thrown in my face here today. [laughter] >> let me say, and i say this in

front of a former senate staffer, it is painful for me to admit it, too, but that's where the 60 vote, you're going to have to cobble something together getting 60 votes. and at that point whatever happens there, i believe, will be presented to the house. and this is based on painful experience and bitter experience. and they will say you can either take this, or you can permit a large tax increase on the american people. and at that point i think the house will, with all of the resentment that we can muster or they can muster, accept it. >> but there's, i think the president after election, i think the president -- especially in his first term -- often has a power of speech and a bully pulpit that he doesn't have later. my sense is i don't want to say there's a 50% probability, but i'll give it at least a 30, 40% probability after the election the next president says, all right, people, i want an extension of all these things, and i'm going to come up with a

major proposal in march or april. in fact, i think e as to come up with a budget proposal anyway. so he's going to do it anyway, and he's going to take a lot of heat for it, he might just say forestall these decisions, give me until mid year, and can i'm going to come up with a major proposal. now, whether he can pull it together and whether it works is another issue. i have real doubts that either party has any sense of how this stuff fits together. or really i should say how they don't fit together. but i do think that's something very likely to see in november, december going through up until the early budget season. >> right. and i think you can start to see the likelihood of having parameters for tax reform. >> uh-huh. >> having a timeline, having revenue targets, things like that that emerge out of the discussions for the fiscal cliff. finish. >> do you feel like you're talking about, you know, whoever's the next president will have to come up with a plan. i know, you know, the ways and means has been working behind closed doors on a plan, senate

finance. so what are we likely to see, you know, right after the election come out, you know, what sort of proposals will come out, and what will be some of the things that people should look for in that? are there going to be taxes on investment income? will that be something they're talking about? what's that going to look like? >> to me, i think what the committees will likely do is draw upon their experience in the past. and so if chairman baucus is still chairman baucus, he will likely look to his experience with health care reform. so, um, he's now done a series of hearings, um, and in all likelihood you might see an option paper or several option papers that emerge. and i think that's always a helpful process. dave camp did it on the international front. it's always a helpful process to have that kind of debate and discussion going forward. >> uh-huh. let's talk about sort of the compromise for a second. you know, john, you used to work

with the house republicans. i'm curious to know, do you feel like republicans are open to raising revenues particularly in the house, or what's the revenue question there? >> well, what they're not open to, i don't think, is raising tax rates. >> with right. >> that has historically been a nonstarter. the question is, would they be willing to let revenues rise in a context in which you are doing some kind of reform that broadens the base. and just before the august recess the house passed a bill that was to set the parameters for tax reform. it was to create some -- >> we'll leave this discussion briefly for a quick pro forma session of the u.s. senate. we'll return in just a moment. now live to the senate floor. rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christophr a. coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform te duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on friday, october 1, 11:00 a.m. on friday, october 1,

>> the senate in and out for a quick pro forma session, the next one scheduled for friday at 11 a.m. eastern when lawmakers return for legislative work after the elections. they'll proceed to the sportsmens bill sponsored by john tester of montana that would increase access for hunting and fishing and supports land and species conservation. after that senators will return to legislation streamlining refinancing for homeowners who have loans through fannie mae and freddie mac and are current on their payments. watch live gavel-to-gavel coverage as always here on c-span2 when the senate returns for legislative work tuesday, november 13th, at 2 p.m. eastern. the "philadelphia inquirer", by the way, is reporting that at least 1500 people are expected at the funeral of former pennsylvania senator arlen specter at noon today. it's taking place in penn valley, pennsylvania. vice president biden will also be there.

senator specter died over the weekend from complications of non-hodgkin's lymphoma which he'd been battling over the years. he was also the longest-serving senator in pennsylvania history. arlen specter was 82 years old. and now back to live coverage of that discussion on pending tax increases and the january budget cuts. >> so if you look at just social security and retirement by itself, social security tax, if you just let taxes rise, you get out there about 20 years, this is the baby boomers retired, by the time of 2030, you have got to the new world, four percentage points higher to support the current set of promises. so something has to happen there. you could do it gradually. i worry, i said earlier, about in the notion of exempting everybody over 55 or 60. we've got -- and i'm in that group -- we have half the wealth of the population. we came through the recession better than any other group when you look at wealth holdings. exempting the richest among the most stable parts of the population from dealing with anything even in the shorter

near term is a problem, and that's where some of the notions that we can wait long term for social security and medicare reform is i think is wrong both as an equity matter, but also just looking at the numbers. you've got to start looking at stuff now. health care is really complex, i don't know if you want to go a far into that. in my own view, both candidates are in a world of nonthink. they're both claiming that what they're going to do to control medicare costs doesn't cut benefits, so so if we put on a voucher, that's not going to cut benefits. well, a voucher cuts the money that's available, that's going to cut benefits. but if you put price controls in medicare, that cuts benefits. it's just you're cutting it by what you pay providers or what you give consumers. in the campaign they're both denying that any of these approaches cut benefits, and there has to be a real deep discussion with the american public. if you cut the rate of growth of benefits paid in medicare, you're cutting the benefits. so let's figure out the most efficient way to do it, and i

don't think there's any permanent solution. we need a political process that allows if the democrats win, do price controls. if the republicans win, let's do more medicare advantage or vouchers, stuff like that. you may be right politically as to where we can get there. >> one of my questions is if not everything gets solved during the fiscal cliff and some of these things are punted, kick your can, pick your cliche into 2013, what's going tock the mechanism at that point to make people do something? right now we have the sequester hanging over our head and expiration of the tax cuts, but what's going the force people to act if these things are pushed off? >> debt limit, right, gene? i mean, that's the one time every couple of years now the president and the congress have to get together and have some kind of discussion even if it doesn't reach a full conclusion on the future size, shape and direction of government. and so sometime, you know, very late this year or early next year they'll be back in the debt

limit soup again. >> i mean, i think everybody focusing on fiscal cliff, the discussions omit the debt limit which is going to be far more contentious than the fiscal cliff. >> well, "the wall street journal" is reporting, i think sometime this week, that it seems like now based on treasury estimates that the debt ceiling will be hit in january with extraordinary measures, that pushes it until march. does that change the calculus of what's going to happen in the fiscal cliff if the debt ceiling's off the table? >> i don't -- >> again, i just don't know. there's so many items that we have to deal with, the alternative minimum tax, the debt ceiling and doc fix and the bush extension tax cuts. i just don't see any way to do it without trying to put together some big package. be we try to tackle them one at a time, it's impossible. and as i say, i think there's a disconnect between what has already been promised, much less what the candidates want to do and is what reality's going to force on them to do.

and i should say, by the way, if the next president doesn't get things a little bit under control in the first year, he's going to be totally swamped in the his last three years. east going to be able to take -- he's going to be able to take no new initiatives he wants to take. right now there's only a lack of money for new initiatives, there's, if you want, negative money. thai got to get the system under control. i just don't see any way to do it without trying to do a major reframing a la simpson-bowles. i'm not saying it has to be simpson-bowles, but let's try to put things together. trying to tackle them one at a time, you say i tackled this, and we still have 90% of our problem. isn't that wonderful? that doesn't sell politically either. >> i think you could see a lame duck solution that pushes everything forward, including the debt limit, for a period of time, enforces what you're talking about is that they all be considered at the same time. >> uh-huh. >> i don't think there's any --

based on my experience in lame duck sessions, there's rarely anything done of substance, so i don't think there's any prospect of substantive legislation in the lame duck. the only thing they'll be able to do is push forward the cliff for some period of time. >> uh-huh. >> well, and i think that period of time needs to be significant in terms of, you know, not doing a couple bumps, but more of a complete year. because there are, again, so many different elements colliding that it will take time to work this all out, including the tax reform or anything on tax. >> uh-huh. how much time does congress and the white house have to work this out? you know, you're saying youty they need at least a year, but do they have more than that considering the 2014, you know, congressional elections will start looming? [laughter] >> i remember when i talk to people, that's what people are already talking about. >> no, actually, a good

question. immediately after this election we're going to start asking who's in cycle in 2014. >> yeah. >> and that's the risk of pushing it out a year because then you're just back into that same old cycle. but the reality is, well, i think the reality is that you do need time to work through these policies and these issues. >> yeah. >> my -- many of you know the guys i work with at ways and means, and one of them who i won't name right now likes to say this will be part of a big deal which we'll do right as soon as we're six years away from the next presidential election. [laughter] you know, i think he's right. we feed kind of breathing space. so that's, i think, the timeline we're working on. >> right. but -- [laughter] >> and i'm slightly more optimistic. i think phi years -- no, no, it is within a short period of time after the markets force action. [laughter] you know, that it is, at some point the fiscal policyings are

unsustainable, and at some point the position that we currently have of being able, you know, the only safe currency, the safe harbor we can borrow, essentially, at zero interest rates because everybody else is in worse shape, believe it or not. >> uh-huh. >> i do think there's a difference between what we have to do in december and january because of all the fiscal cliff items, what we have to do in the first year just to sort of get back on track, and what i think is going to be a long, multiyear process. what we went through in about '82-'97 when we had five or six deaf set reduction agreements -- deficit reduction agreements, that was child's play. not what we have to do now is harder, it's harder politically, it's not harder economically. we have this system where we're planning on spending another trillion dollars ten years from now, but it's all going to interest on the debt because we're not collecting enough taxes, social security and medicare.

it's all going there, and everything else goes into a tail spin. and we've got to get that system in order. and even getting back towards sustainability, even these notions of having a $4 trillion over ten years, that bare hi gets you to sustainability. it leaves no room for emergencies, no room for fiscal policy in a recession, no room to enact something new. so i think we're in a very unique period relative to our history. we've never promised so much for the future. it's hard to explain to people. the deficit issue is not just today's deficit, it's that we've built in deficits 30 years from now or 100 years from now. it'd be like a company basically deciding, we're going the sign contracts today for the plants we're going to buy, sign contracts for more plants than we can even afford. so trying to pull all of that back into order, i think, is going to be a multiyear process that's going to force us to do things in the short run like a debt downgrade which i think we're very likely to have. and don't forget some of these

put enormous pressure on a lot of funds that can't buy bonds, government bonds if they're downgraded too much. so things like that are going to force some actions. i doubt seriously we're going to get everything we need in the short run because i don't think there is a full recognition either by our politicians or the public of just the unique -- i'm not saying extraordinary, you know, wars and depressions have been worse -- but the unique political aspect of promising so much for the future. i don't think they fully understand what a box they've got themselves in, and i think it's going to take -- it's almost like the articles of confederation, it's going to take years to actually get out of that box. >> uh-huh. what, um, how long do you think that the federal government has to cook up some sort of deal that's going to make the markets and wall street happy and get them off their back a little bit in how much time do we have there, and what does that deal need to look like to make people feel comfortable? >> well, i think wall street and the markets are quite happy right now.

i mean, it's the fact that we have this extraordinary source of low-cost funds that is the reason why this is not a current problem. i agree with gene, long run you have very serious issues here. and the only question is, what would be the triggering event that forces congress to do something? now, i don't think it is another procedural promise enacted as part of a debt can limit deal that will have the same positive effect as the last one did. another deadline that congress will ultimately extend. >> uh-huh. >> so there has to be something at some point that forces action, and that is a change, you know, if other countries become, you know, the euro's percent than the dollar, people will -- better than the dollar, people will not buy our debt, or we'll have to pay higher interest rates to pay for the debt. and that's where the real, the

real crunch starts happening. we are borrowing short now. i mean, it is kind of the -- if you were a corporate manager, you would be borrowing 30-year bonds right now, but we're borrowing short to mask our current year deficits, and that policy is masking our deficits now. it'll be far worse if we were following a rational borrowing policy. >> and we're borrowing cheap because we're the best looking horse in the glue factory. laugh- [laughter] >> so worldwide recession which is very likely slowdown in growth on china, what happens internationally -- >> yes. >> we always have surprises internationally, it could also force us to act very easily. >> with right. >> low interest rates is, it's almost a tease. it's almost like, i almost in some ways wish we had higher interest rates because that would mean there's worldwide economic growth that's driving up the interest rates. >> do you see any difference between, you know, the lame duck

in 2010 and what we're going the face this time and politically what will happen? >> to me, i think it depends on the election results. um, i think that to the extent, um, it's a status quo election, um, i think a lot of cues can be taken from 2010. but i think to the extent you see a change in administrations, i think lame duck may look very, very different. i mean, historically not a whole lot has changed when we've changed, um, you know, the party in the white house during a lame duck session. so i think it really will depend on the outcome of the election. >> but is that true? because i feel like, you know, there's a possibility that, you know, if romney is elected, you know, no one will really want to do anything, they'll want to wait for, you know, his administration to take over so everything will, you know, potentially be extended or go off the cliff so he can take over, and then if obama's in the white house again, you know,

everything could get extended as well. >> right. no, i think that's a real possibility. and, again, i think as we were talking about earlier, i think that whoever wins will also feel a mandate as well. so i think the lame duck process particularly, again, if status quo, will be a difficult struggle. you know, in reaching a consensus. i mean, there'll be lots of debates about how to handle, um, things -- the fiscal cliff and the items within the fiscal cliff in the short run, you know, to get, get us into the next two to four years down the road. so -- >> gene, you brought up, um, sort of the budget battles of the past in the 1990s. you know, as we look ahead to 2013 and these things that have to be done and, you know, a deal that will hang over whoever occupies the white house next, what lessons can we take from

the budget battles of the '90s or from tax reform of 1996 which you were involved in? >> well, i'll make a provocative statement, and i'll say vice president caneny was right -- cheney was right. that'll set some people off, actually, on both sides of the aisle. one time he claimed the presidency had become quite weakened. now, he played it off on the international front but i think on the domestic front over time. even my colleagues are all talking about what congress is going to do. i think there are limits on any political committee designing things. i think they can design, well, we can cut rates, or we can change this parameter, that parameter, but you get into elaborate designs, particularly like health reform, you had sort of an architecture and plumbing and everything else in place. you could argue when you like or don't like health reform, but there's a lot of kinks in the

system because of that. and i think you've got the same issue now. i think we almost have of to have a strong executive. maybe we need another alexander hamilton. we need -- you know, who made a few enemies along the way. but we really need to have some very powerfully-constructed plans. i think that's one of the things we were lucky about in tax reform is we were able to, you can argue whether it's the staff at treasury that does it, we were able internally to take a set of proposals and reframe the debate. so i think it's not just compromising, it's reframing the debate so people say, okay, i really don't like all the changes you're suggesting, but you know what? that new world you're suggesting is better than the old world, you know? the old world is just falling apart, and i'm willing to accept a compromise at that level. i think that's almost what we have to go through now. i don't know, and my colleagues may disagree here, i don't know that you could just do a 1990, '93 let's get everybody together and go in some back room and

make some bargains. if you really look at the changes they made then, enormous efforts not to make them really very large, and those times it was 500 billion over five year, you know, that's really small potatoes compared to now, and they didn't do systemic reform in those budget agreements. they started cutback here and there, little more medicare cost, excise taxes, so i'm not quite sure. you've got to have some of those agreements, you've got to go through the political process, i don't believe you can tart there. >> let me disagree with gene in part and, john, you can follow me in defending -- [laughter] >> he's writing things down, he's getting ready. >> but if you look at 19, the early 1980s when there was a string of significant deficit reduction that was written on the hill, it was not written in the reagan treasury department, it was written on the hill -- >> in the senate, by the way, largely leading -- >> i'm not, i'm not -- you can rub salt in some old wounds --

[laughter] >> i'm just confirming -- >> it was largely written on the congress. the social security reform legislation of '82-'83 did not come from the executive branch, it came from kind of a quasi-informal group recommendation of a commission that was changed quite a bit on the hill. you know, you do need both. i just think you overestimate the ability of the president each in the past. i mean -- even in the past. and i look at the '80s as an example. now, the other lesson i draw from 1986 tax reform is that you cannot have tax reform of any significance until you've solved the deficit problem. you know? you just, it is not -- you have -- the 1986 tax reform

followed four to five years of serious deficit reduction that largely reversed the '81 tax cuts. i mean, in very large part. then congress had the luxury of having a revenue-neutral tax reform plan. that's not a luxury i think we have right now. >> can i -- >> yeah, please. >> dissent in part and concur in part. i don't know that it matter -- john's point, i think, is at some point revenues have to rise above current levels, and i'm not necessarily disagreeing, but i don't know that i agree with him on the timing of it. and that is, i've never fully believed that we should be looking at the current law baseline versus the current policy baseline. my view is we should look at revenues as a share of gdp, take a revenues target we want to hit and then go hit it and then be neutral against a hypothetical baseline we built to get back to

that same point. so to me, it doesn't matter whether you do the revenue increases in that package before it, after it or not at all from a, in terms of the math of making reform work. what matters to me is what gene's point is, i think for any of it to happen under the tax or the spending side, you have to have a president who's willing to lead. and unlike '86 when i think the president old -- could make some very big speeches but then leave details to treasury, we live in a 24/7 blogosphere environment in which the public is bombarded with a lot of information, not all of it fully accurate. and the only person who has the bully pulpit to cut through that poise of the business -- noise of the business media machine is the president. so if he's willing to go out and explain across the country not just why we need tax reform, deficit reduction or why we need x, but explain in a third degree of specificity f he's not

willing to do that, then i think it's very hard for any of us this come together. >> by the way, he will take a hit for i. the question is whether taking a hit at the beginning of an administration such as bill clinton did, actually, in '93 gives him more leeway at the end. but anytime you go to the public and said, you know, we were making all these promises to you, and now we've got huge amounts of work to be done on what i call the giveaway -- in fact, i don't even divide the world in taxes and spending, i divide it into giveaway and takeaway. and he's got to go to the public and say i've got to operate on the giveaway side. and the mantra on the hill right now in both political parties is whoever that does that is dead. george h.w. bush got killed because he did deficit reduction. both parties believe if you lead on the takeaway side of the budget, you're going to get killed. and i think in some instances they're right. if you lead, the other side

knows how to hit you. but i think the problem is so bad there's no way to avoid that. and so i think not only does the president have to lead, but i think he's got to lead in a way he knows he's going to have to take a hit, but he gets enough done with the congress, and he has to share credit, by the way, he can't just say i'm going to do all this and, you know, he's got to share credit and not attack the other side which is also what ross tan kousky and the president -- >> right. more a share of blame, i believe, in the future -- >> minimize. try to minimize. >> but let me, let me take this opportunity to agree with john as to how one should measure tax reform. if tax reform devolves into a debate about baselines, current law, current policy, it is going to be almost incomprehensible. what you need to do is exactly what john is suggesting, is pick a revenue target as a percentage of gdp. now, i will argue with john as to what that proper target is,

but that is the only way you can do tax reform given the god awful mess that our current law is. i mean, it's hard to say what current policy is or even baseline is given where we're at. >> right. >> the only thing i would say is as to what the percentage is, you know, bill clinton did succeed in balancing the budget with revenues at 20.7% of gdp. >> well, but that was one year with capital gains receipts -- be -- >> i'm not arguing about, i'm saying it took 20.7% to balance the budget in 1997. we are 15 years down the line, we have much higher levels of retirement expenses, social security expenses, so even -- unless you have just extraordinary reductions in

retirement benefits, you kind of see what you need at the bare minimum to do. things have changed since '97. our level of retirees is just dramatically higher. >> i think we're, um, ready to take some questions from the audience if there are any. while people think about that, one thing that i'm curious about and curious to hear from the panel is if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are, you know, here to stay. if they're so baked into how people think about the code that they -- >> i don't think so. i think that, and this is, again, john traub/john buckley agreement society. [laughter] to me, if they get a presumption about how much revenue as a share of gdp the country's going to take in, but one of the points if you read price of politic, there's a point near the end where we're discussing

events inside the super committee, and he tells a story about dave camp going to baucus and saying i'm willing to do tax reform that gets rid of the bush tax cuts. and the point is that if we're going to lower everybody's rate and broaden the base, it's sort of the old notion of the bush tax cuts goes away in a redefined code -- albeit we're going to argue on what the revenue coming out of reform might be -- but to me that's also the solution to the rubik's cube. we have this intractable problem right now. what the current president wants is additional revenue. republicans don't want to raise tax rates. so the only way you can align the cubes to solve the problem is to do the base broaden, lower the rates in a way that only hasn't when the president's willing to provide political cover for it. so it's, obviously, a very difficult bank shot. >> but, you know, tax reform promising lower rates, i'm with gene here, we're promising the good things, and we're hiding the necessary painful aspects of

it. i, frankly, don't think the congress is going to vote to repeal the mortgage interest deduction. i actually think it would be reckless policy to repeal the mortgage interest deduction given the current state of our markets. i can't think of anything worse for our economy than a further pressure on housing prices and repealing the mortgage interest deduction would do that. so i don't think there's any support for that. we talk about loring rates, but -- lowering rates, but we don't talk about the big elephants in the room which is the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable deduction, employer-provided health care exclusion. and those are the only items available. and that's why i think the joint committee estimate last week is very constructive. >> yeah, and i'm glad john brought that up, because we disagree a lot about this. >> yeah, but what they did is they had a revenue-neutral, very aggressive tax reform that repealed all itemized deductions with no transition relief for

homeowners, raised the capital gains up to ordinary rates, and they were able to reduce rates by 4%. now, that measured against the baseline was 20% gdp in revenues. so that, what tom estimated was a proposal that would give you tax revenues at 20% of gdp. now, the difference between that 20% and the 19% that's in paul ryan's budget would imply another 10% reduction in rates. now, that gets you the mid 30s, but -- >> let me -- >> go ahead. >> really, i need to. >> go ahead, and then we're going to take a question from the audience. >> with the joint tax, and john makes lots of great points as usual, but keep in mind, they found $2.5 trillion of base broadening, but then they took a trillion of it and used it to

repeal the amt, they took 380 billion of it and used it to repeal pep -- >> but, john, you would have to do the same thing if you were trying to hit a 19% target. >> but they didn't, they didn't use the base broadening to broaden the base. they used the base broadenners to redefine the baseline. if they had started with a different baseline and not then taken the $2.5 trillion and used ill for things other than -- it for things other than lowering the rate -- [inaudible conversations] >> yeah, gene's going to explain it. >> there's this internal debate about how much you can get out of base broadening and how much you're going to do -- there's also a side debate here over technically how you get all this stuff done, and the joint committee in some ways is a little bit shooting a shot across the bow to say, hey, people, we're the official score item is -- scorekeepers, and the big one here they decided, well, if they do base broadening, the alternative tax is going to raise a trillion dollars. so they just spent a trillion dollars to get rid of the

alternative minimum tax as opposed to lowering other rates. >> but, gene -- >> i think we've got to avoid getting too much into the weeds here. >> no, i agree with you -- >> there's a lot of big items out there that if you, you can only, you know, what we useed to call at treasury the short table cloths. >> right. ..

hate to say it's our arithmetic. we are going to questions. >> one of the simplest forms about that letter is it tells you some of the tax preferences don't raise a lot of money and have a lot of impact. >> okay we have a question here. >> sullivan and i will phrase this broadly. the first panel talked about the gop growth agenda and to use a terrible word, could you unpack that for us? how would that work and with the

joint committee does and how that scored what we could realistically expect to see out of that? >> i didn't hear the first panel. the question is whether there is some revenue lee raised out of the conference of reform. i think the answer is yes, but not that much. the hard part john would china and how do you make an accurate measure of it. but those that think the joint tax is going to come along and say we are going to get an additional 2% gdp and it's going to be this amount of revenue i think you are talking about a much finer grain to the number than a sort of the enormous boost. >> government will give you economic growth. think of how much more economic growth you will get because of the indebtedness of the people.

it's usually long term, and there's one huge budget problem people mess and i alluded to this earlier when i talked about the discretionary budget. if you've got more economic growth that raises revenue a lot and the discretionary revenue was flat because the defense said was already building -- deficit was already building. today it automatically increases retirement spending. it automatically increases health spending so the major items in the budget economic growth, spending growth along with new revenue so the revenue growth isn't able to reduce the debt the way it did used to be able to do. so the ability to get at the deficit and if you think the deficit is the bigger issue as opposed to the study of 84, 83 than you get that negative impact coming back. >> another question from the

audience? >> this is charles blum. i'm here for the coalition for a prosperous america. i am thinking back to 1986. many of you were involved, and at some point in that process it was decided we could make ourselves more internationally competitive that came up at the beginning with congresswoman schwartz and was kind of ignored. was apparently if we simplify our tax system, lowered the corporate rate we would make ourselves more international the competitive. if you look at the growth of our trade deficits, they actually start exploding just a couple of years later as our trading partners now 150 something of them have lowered their corporate rates -- that's why we are again disadvantaged and that the mengin -- and they shifted a certain portion of their tax

burden onto consumption in the significant trade advantage. are we about to make the same mistake again? >> i don't understand our u.s. king if we are going to do a consumption tax? >> the point is if we ignore international competition and think there's magic in the lower corporate rate and other people respond by continuing or expanding as all of our free trade partners have, their advantage with consumption taxes while we insist to be the only manufacturing company without one, aren't we setting ourselves up for another disappointment in terms of the international competitiveness of our tax system? >> so the question is if we keep a higher tax rate will be hurt competitiveness? >> know if we have a lower tax rate -- >> the only thing i would say is if you look at most other

countries, their income taxes including their corporate income taxes as a percentage of their economy at least is as large as ours. i've always found it hard to accept the argument that the fact that we don't have a consumption tax and rely on income taxes i find it hard to accept the relevance of that when the income tax load is slightly below average. other countries just have much larger governments. they have consumption taxes, but they have a level of government spending that dwarfs hours as well, so they've decided on the larger side of the government finance with a combination of income taxes, consumption taxes and payroll taxes. but it's a product of the size of the government that they have consumption taxes. >> i have a slightly different answer which is i don't think

the current center of gravity and the debate in washington is the consumption tax but leads to other reforms on the international side that are intended to make us more competitive, namely they would have been to word a territorial tax system. >> i think there is a question over here. >> with the rate coalition my question is a little bit of a follow-up on the first to. kristin roberts asked the first representative panel schwartz and roskam what you see and i think some of the answers were touched on. given the fact that the u.s. has the highest corporate income tax among the oecd countries, do you think there is, as representatives schwartz and roskam seem to indicate a common ground found on the corporate tax reform? >> i think both parties would like to cut the corporate rates. the extent is open to question. i think both parties actually push comes to shove on the take

away side, either pay for that or give the deficit. i feel there is more common ground on dealing with tax exclusions and deductions and credits them in a lot of other items. i think there's actually some consensus behind closed doors that he's got to do social security reform and other trust reforms aren't there for the long run and they've got to do something. i think that's sort of where they are at. how far they go in the rate reduction and what price they are willing to pay a thing that is where the rubber hits the road. i will say this if you think that there is no set for the individual tax rates on the taxpayers there is very little push on the higher rates in general. in some sense that is unique. i think there is some consensus with high rates, just one exception with a high income people should pay more. >> go ahead. >> last week senator schumer gave a speech and we said that we need to work to broaden the

rate on the individual side but he said i thought corporations need to come down. but i think it's a sort of center of gravity on that notion on the corporate side that reality check is given how much business income is earned in the reform it's very hard to do corporate only tax plan. the corporate reform is almost never part of a broad reform which involves the individual site which involves a number of additional complications. >> and let me agree with john i just don't see the individual and corporate reform as being separated. the members of congress care about the individual tax first and foremost because of the impact on their constituents. 86 was an example. you do the two things together. >> for the reasons john expressed there is they experience as it was then so there is even greater pressure to do the two things together. that's why i think the business groups have to think about the

individual side. they have a tendency to only look at the corporate side, but they have to also analyze the prospects here and look at the individual site. >> i would just say i wholeheartedly agree you have to look at individually in the corporate side. the only point that i would add is lowering the rate by 1%, a joint tax is estimated 135 billion over ten years. steep members of this difficult decisions to be made on the corporate front. >> i should add i think there's room for reduction if you are willing to get at the tax arbitraged which in the business world is largely where you are getting interest deductions on one side and capital gains relief on the other on things like this. the international field it goes to these things that are called the capitalization where the multinationals are able to basically lower the rate by taking interest deductions and a higher rate country like the united states and take the receipts and a lower country. if you are only after some of

that stuff there is no room for the rate reduction that i think anything that the joint committee or even the major commissions have actually addressed so far. >> i think we have to wrap up but thank you so much to the panelists. this is very illuminating. >> thank you for a much. while we are just doing microphone changes i would like to introduce the moderator for both of the panel discussions this morning. nancy cook is the budget and tax correspondent for national journal. she joined national journal from fast company where she was a senior editor and writer and wrote speeches about media executives, technology, companies and corporate strategy and edited the front of the book's section. she worked as a staff writer at "newsweek" where she covered business and economics. and our final keynote panel today will consist of steve bailey who is a member of the partners and dr. doug holtz-eakin of the american action for them. with that i think we will just

take a second to get everyone here miced. >> [inaudible conversations] >> well, thank you for joining us. we have a lot of things to talk about. a lot of things came up in the last panel. we talked the last panel a lot about 2013 and what's going to happen, but i want to go back to

the end of the year. you know, what do you both feel like is likely to happen then, and what are some areas you can see a compromise happening? do you want to start? >> sure. i think it's important to recognize there really are three different issues involved, and the first is literally the fiscal cliff, the end of the year tax increases on spending cuts the will happen on autopilot which i view as a threat to the economy. we have a very weak economy that's moving sideways at the moment at best, and that issue is going to face in the lame-duck. there's also the debt limit. my own view is you should keep the debt limit as far away from the fiscal cliff as you can. there is nothing that comes from intermixing the two. the third one is the deal, which is we have to have a deal for the fundamentals of the to the tax reform and entitlement reforms of the we have a debt burden that is sustainable for the future.

the lame-duck just focus on those you shouldn't intermix the debt ceiling and pretend you will get a big deal. i think all of that is a misfit to become a state. from now to 2015 without a self-inflicted recession and without being a good steward to the economy. and we already know that a payroll tax already is essentially gone. there's an agreement on both sides. we know there are taxes on the affordable care act. so that puts a real premium on not doing any damage which means you have to somehow have a tax agreement that keeps the current rates in the next year and you have to deal with the sequestered in particular and not face the draconian cuts. these are bad policies on top of the macroimpact. so that is the lame-duck. those two things. what deal you can make on taxes and of replacing the sequestered with returned cuts. and actually in the camp they will get something done. i can't say one, but it's an

agenda that is manageable. two things, they have to do or they are going to be responsible for a congressionally induced recession and they shouldn't do that. so, you know, adding it will be done. what we have seen of course is the politics. let's play chicken with the taxes on the spending. so that's what makes me nervous. >> even the panel, the first panel was focused on the tax policy and the bush tax cuts and sort of the disagreement on who you should tax and revenue. where do you see people coming together at the end of the year to cut a deal? what are the contours of that? >> i think the main contour is they will take a look after the election that would absolutely has to be done and figure out how to get that done by the end of the year. as john buckley diluted to the history of the lame-duck

accomplishment is not very grand. and i think if you talk to the people up there who are going to be managing this process, the only task that absolutely has to be done by the end of the year is fixing the amt 42012, and i've been kind of a skeptic for long time about the accomplishments, and if i were to bet i would say that they would fix the amt 42012 and not much else to read >> if we can live my expectations. [laughter] the reality is i actually agree with a lot of that. the reality is it is in the dna of the congress to kick things down the road, so they are good at that. whoever is advantaged by the election and however it plays out is going to want to take anything fundamental. and so lame duck is all about

just, you know, both politically and economically getting to 2013. i think they might need to do more than that because i don't see them from the amt. it's a serious policy issue. these cuts -- you can't manage federal agencies and take ten, 13% of the cuts across the board and to the fiscal year. this is literally disgraceful. so it would be nice if the congress had something non-disgrace for once. >> the fact is everybody in this room has observed if you give converse the paper they're going to take get. and it happened even the events that we thought were forcing mechanisms and budget control act is a perfect example, they have the opportunity to do big things but part of it meant the

failure didn't really have any consequences but that's where it ended up. >> i'm curious to hear your thoughts because in the super committee i feel like you have seen a lot of these negotiations over these key issues behind closed doors. so what are some of the things that use all behind the closed doors because they could strike a big deal next year or deal with some of these issues. >> it's kind of the old washington fallacy that you are always one clarifying yvette away from having the situation suddenly come into places and i sat in a bunch of the seven health reforms too. all of those negotiations were a step or two forward and back. almost on a daily basis.

the gang of six, another example. they would end the evening on a high note. there would be phone messages waiting in the morning saying wait i want to think this through again and we got to the point where congress loves to talk about how it is time to make tough choices they would have an interior mechanism for not causing that threshold. it's not something. we are out of time so they are going to have to do things. the great irony that when you run for president now you think what does one want to do president obama got elected and in the big recession he had to act in the domestic policy agenda you have to stick it in the stimulus bill which is a mixed result but she did what he had to do and i don't know what

they think they are going to do. they have from january to august for international capital markets the politics are not so broken that we can make proper progress and it doesn't happen. enough and they will downgrade and get some real capital market repercussions and so that changes the dynamic completely. what scares me as some members don't seem to care about that and that's dangerous but if you take that seriously we have to get a deal in 2013 that's hard work we aren't just clarifying the deal wasn't going to come from heaven. you have to clear it to do that hard work and that's why they are going to realize we have to clear up the sequester and the end of the tax increase and the debt ceiling and get to work because we are out of time. >> we have basically from january to august to come up with something. why all this? how are you setting the time frame? >> we are used to the tradition you go home from august and start running for reelection in

2014. >> the elections will be the clock. that will make people. >> it has been the observation. it's a large vibrant economy with the capacity to fix the fiscal problems and it does it because the politics. this is the moment. opportunity, what you do? if the answer is nothing they are going to move when they come back in january. if the commerce ends up punishing a lot of these things until the next year and then the debt ceiling comes up let's say it has to be dealt with by march how is that going to reflect

then whatever negotiations are happening on either some deal, some tax reform? >> that's a really hard issue. [laughter] >> it's an interesting position because when we come to that presumably would have dealt with this issue of sequestered so you would have a large number of members of congress talking about how harmful of these cuts are and then we will get into the debt ceiling debate where presumably many of the same members of congress will be trying to come up with new cuts that they hope are not so dangerous. it's going to be quite a stripping exercise for some of those people. it will be interesting to watch. >> my personal theory is if you get to august you don't have a big debt ceiling on the degree for more big cuts to sort of go along with it. you just buy time. you want a fundamental deal to

do is put us in the position of having the fiscal cliff again it shouldn't be on the one-year rental item one should go one and you fix the debt ceiling problem in that bill. >> if we had a downgrade this past summer and create the budget control act and the super committee and the fiscal clef none of those things spurred action so what is to make you think that another downgrade or another stop by the markets will force people to do something? >> the truth is there are many people who believe what you said which is who cares if we downgrade we are the best broken hearts in the factory and it's not going to affect our capacity to finance the federal government, but if we just look at the united states and its numbers where it is and where it is projected we are already in the danger zone historically, about 90% of gdp growth that we

look like a country that gets in trouble and we are growing more slowly and there is a penalty that comes with the debt and we have a lot of highly opaque and contingent liabilities popping up first in the mortgage liabilities and the fha and student loans our next and the pensions that's what they look like. with the heavy winds in the short term borrowing that's characteristic of the country's getting in trouble. so at some point even the members of congress and the administration have to understand the economics and the consequences are literally catastrophic. we don't want to do that. i would hope that what further. >> one of the things i'm curious about is, you know, you and i have talked before about the republicans and their willingness to deal on the revenues. when we talked before the panel you were saying you feel like republicans will have to come to agree to some revenue through way simpson-bowles deal.

is that going to be okay? >> the evidence is when they get the opinion from inside the room but there was evidence put on the table. you can talk about how much. but it was there and the revenue isn't tax increases in the previous panel so it is through the tax reform. it really is. mr. boehner's discussions with the president last year which didn't work out included revenue offer. so it is in the case putting revenue on the table. they do. but we have had a 24 emco 30 year standoff they said we aren't raising the revenue until we get spending cuts that will stick and involve transformational changes to entitlement programs that make them sustainable. we are not touching entitlements until you touch the revenue. and that stambaugh has been very last thing. a lot of time. so part of it, the message here is you don't have the luxury of the preference. the other part is in the end of these are bipartisan deals and nancy pelosi has to deliver some deals in the house.

>> what he said is correct, but i would just say even within the sabrue committee, that contingency was still there that republicans would have entertained the revenue stuff perhaps had democrats been willing to put a good faith effort forth particularly on health, and i was kind of the linkage that we worked under. by you talk about how people are going to have to come off of their fixed positions, right now in the s. con. res. 70 there are only six republicans that have flooded for a tax increase. >> is that true? >> yeah. after this election there will be five and senator lugar was one of them. that's how far we have come. in the 1990's vote.

the house republicans supported it but within two years all of that went away. the one thing that i've noticed over all the years is that there doesn't seem to be an atmosphere for the scenario anymore. the tax legislation process has become a zero sum game both mathematically and politically. >> do you feel like the standoff is versus three entitlements to you get the sense there are a large number of democrats that are willing to change the programs and is that going to be a part of the deal? >> nobody has ever put them to the test so we don't really know in a live fire situation. >> we will find out. >> exactly. i feel like one of the key thing is about the agreement if there

is an agreement in the fiscal cliff for 2013 is how both parties sell it to the people. how do the house republicans or the democrats in the senate sell some type of deal that makes them look bad and were the optics of that? >> there's a couple things. there are a couple of things that have been going on that have hurt our ability to get these deals and part of it is the fact that the congress no longer does its ordinary business on time. it doesn't pass the budget resolutions, eight doesn't do the ordinary oversight and when you do that on the small issues you start to learn what are the points where you actually have some agreement and what are some points you just want to avoid them that is a point of contention. you can't get a big deal until you build that foundation. it's hard for them to come together and figure out a deal

and sell it. it will be harder than it would have been. the second thing that is missing is the white house leadership. they said this is what i would like and send it to congress. they desperately need to do something hard. they get to see the president asked us to do this. he didn't really want to. you selected him. all the people. it's not a perfect bill. i tweaked and got the victory. and the president solid. even if it doesn't come out exactly what they want, they go sell it. and we just haven't seen that. and i think going forward we're going to need that. ..

>> everybody is okay with the framework, but he said a lot of my guys really don't understand, um, what thai going to have to -- what they're going of to have to go through to make those kinds of trade-offs. and one thing that congressman roskam said made me kind of chuckle because he was talking about nobody, there's nobody there to defend the current tax code. wait until they get to tax reform, he will see how many defenders -- [laughter] >> this is my favorite metric of just how hard this is. i tell everyone this.

on february 3, 2013, the 16th amendment which allowed the income tax, will be 100 years old. >> right. >> that's my birthday, by the way. [laughter] highly ironic. and in those 100 years, we've had less than one handful of -- >> right. >> so going in as a proposition, tax reform is really hard. the house passed this enabling legislation to fast track tax reform. great. anything you can do to grease the skids to make it more likely to get done, i'm in favor of. i don't think the members quite grasp p p how hard it's going to be. >> yeah. we've talked about this before. there are so few people that have taken these votes, do you feel like they're aware of what they're up against? >> well, they soon will be. [laughter] on the tax writing committees, only senator grassley and mr. rangel and mr. stark have been through tax reform, so for everybody else it's going to be a brand new experience. >> actually, the good news on

the senate side hatch and baucus have been there. >> well, hatch wasn't a member of the committee at the time, but there are a few veterans. >> you need that. and to get that in the key places is helpful. >> i think we're going to take some questions from the audience if there are some. people have mics. here we go. >> i'm lynn from miller and cavalier. do you agree with the consensus of the last panel that it really is not realistic to think of separating individual tax reform from corporate tax reform, assuming corporate tax reform deals with the pass-through issue? >> i personally think that's absolutely right. i mean, you have to look at these comprehensively. businesses are taxed through both the corporate code and the individual code. you have to have a cohesive approach to business taxation, or there's no point getting into this game. um, and it's, you know, it's

very, very hard to do a sensible, internationally-competitive corporate reform on a stand-alone basis. not ill possible, but hard -- not impossible, but hard x. we need that. that's the number one thing we need. i would really hope that's how it'll play out. i'd love to hear your disagreement on this. one of the things that worries me about how the election turns out. it's clear that the republicans are relatively advantaged. they've had their framework, mr. romney's in favor of it. the president wants higher rates on individuals which is at odds with lower rates, broader base and comprehensive tax reform. so it sure looks to me like he's signaling, yeah, i believe in tax reform, but we're going to do the corporate one over here and get to 28, and we're going to have the individual one over here, and it's going to be higher rates, and that bothers me from a tax policy perspective. >> it does me too. and, to me, i thought one of the, one of the accomplishments that we could point to in the

simpson-bowles was just raising public and press consciousness about the whole business of how widespread, or how many different business models there are and how many of them bleed over into the, onto the individual side of the code. so it just seems to me that if you look at, you know, the tax writers, when they get into this given their experience and background, they will see that you can't, you can't put corporate, the corporate code in a silo anymore. >> i think we have time for one more question. anyone? one thing that i would just be curious to end on is, you know, i want to talk about the economy for a second. you said you're really worried about the state of the economy, doug, but what does the economy and the markets need to, you know, what does a deal look like that makes everybody feel good for the long term for the economy? >> well, i think it, you know, we know from looking at the

history of countries that look like us, you know, sadly around the globe and through history there have been other countries that have our combination of bad growth and big debts, and the recipe that works best -- not a panacea -- is you reform taxes to be more pro-growth. you don't raise them dramatically. keep them down, reform them to a growth and you control the debt on the spending side, but not all spending's created equal. you want to preserve core functions of government which in our world is the discretionary accounts and cut -- [inaudible] which in our world is entitlement programs. time has proven works, tax reform and entitlement, and our current policy stance is let's raise taxes and slash discretionary spending which is only 180 degrees wrong. other than that we're doing good. [laughter] >> what about you, steve? >> i think they will want to see something that demonstrates a credible path to lower debt and lower deficits. i mean, one of the problems that

both of the, i mean, even in the ryan budget i think sometimes people are surprised at how much debt it continues to load on, you know, through the next ten years. and, you know, there's got to be -- we've got to build in both tax reforms, entitlement reforms and pending reform -- spending reforms that start to, we'll use the old term from health reform, bend the curve. you know, we've got to do it on all fronts. >> so one last thing and just to bring up something that gene mentioned on the last panel, he talked about sort of the promises that we've made and the promises that the presidential candidates have made and whether or not those are sort of compatible moving ahead. do you feel like the promises we maid are congruent -- made are congruent with what we can deliver or we're in this hole, as he said? >> we know the current law trajectory's unsustainable. that's not a mystery. under the entitlement programs given the traditional revenue, well, i mean, you can't grow

your way out of this problem, so, yes, it's unsustainable. and the tragic thing is that if you think about as you go back to the structure of the budget, you know, med care, social security, medicaid, these are all sort of legacies of the past, promises we made in the past. sometimes serving populationsing through old age, investments in basic infrastructure, education, all the stuff in the discretionary accounts is our future, and we are literally budgetarily letting our past crush our future, and that's just not a good idea. >> right. >> and we have to change that. >> the past, though, has so many senior citizens who vote in great numbers and who are getting older. >> yes. why this is so hard. but, i mean, tsa where the numbers are. >> right. steve, what are some closing thoughts? >> well, i'm a member of that generation, and the older i get the happier i am that i was born at the beginning of the baby boom and not later. [laughter] but, you know, i took very seriously what gene said earlier about, you know, people who are, people like me who are over 60

heading into medicare and all that kind of stuff. you know, it's always been part of our assumptions. it's certainly, you know, built into the assumptions of my health current health insurance provider that, you know, that i join up with medicare as soon as i'm eligible. but that's, you know, to pivot off of those models is going to be pretty wrenching for a lot of people who, as you point out, are coming into the, you know, years where they may not be working as hard and have more time to watch 24/7 news and get outraged over stuff. so it's, you know, it's going to be a heck of a problem for congress all the way around. >> i'm at the other end of that. i'm at the trailing end of the baby boom generation. >> sorry. >> yeah. my concern is at some point -- we'll talk later. [laughter] no, the trouble is if you follow the traditional model and, you know, 54 -- if i get to 55 and they grandfather me, that means they've grandfathered the baby boom which means they've

grandfathered the problem. >> yeah. >> that's unacceptable. >> yeah. we've almost made it through, you know -- [laughter] i always tell people hooray for us, but -- >> entitlement reform has always been get thy pulse taken. [laughter] it's over. >> no, i mean, you know, i shared an office for 12 years with somebody in her early 30s who handled health and social security, and every time new proposals would come in, i'd ask am i, you know, am i grandfathered? [laughter] and she'd grumble and say, yes. >> well, thank you so much for joining us and thank you, everyone, for listening. appreciate it. [applause] >> on behalf of national journal, i'd like to thank altria, our distinguished panelists and you, our audience, for joining us this morning. i also want to invite you on november 7th at the reagan center to our day after the

election conference. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> the national journal wrapping up this forum looking at how congress and the white house should deal with the pending fiscal cliff. quick programming note that you can watch this event in its entirety tonight at 8 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. today here on c-span2 we have more live coverage coming up at the top of the hour. we'll take you to the hudson institute for a discussion on internet privacy. a federal trade commissioner and a fellow with the hudson

institute will look at proposals from congress and the executive branch and consider the government's role in online privacy. that's coming up live, again, at noon eastern on c-span2. and this afternoon education advisers to the president and the romney campaigns on their candidate's education platforms. that'll start at 4:30 eastern here on c-span2. looking homicide the debate hall -- can inside the debate hall at hofstra university in hempstead, long island, where the president and mitt romney will meet tonight. about 100 people will be in the audience, about 90 of them nassau county undecided voters. president obama's been rehearsing at a resort in williamsburg, virginia. he is expected to arrive in new york this afternoon right around 1:00. mitt romney has been rehearsing near his home, near his boston home. it's expected that both will get the chance sometime today to survey the stage and rehearse

here in the hall which is inside the mack center on the hofstra university campus. as with the previous debate, we will not have access to any of that. tonight, though, we invite you to wamp and engage -- watch and engage as we bring you live coverage of the debate beginning with our preview program at 7 eastern, the debate will get underway at 9. it'll be a town hall style, questions coming from the audience, and moderated by cnn's candy crowley. afterwards we'll take you to spin alley, you can hear from spokesmen from both campaigns who will talk to the media. we will also take your calls, e-mails and tweets. that's on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org and, again, it all gets under way at 7 eastern on c-span. >> i watch c-span because when i want to get the news without a lot of talking and pundits adding their point of view, i can get the original script from a person, and then i can come to

my own conclusions which i think is better than having someone else tell me what i should think. i get c-span, c-span2 and c-span3. 2 is booktv, which i love. c-span3 is the history channel, and they've been doing civil war series. but when i, sometimes i want to visit the senate and see what the house is doing, so i look at c-span for those kinds of things too. >> sandra parker mitchell watches c-span on verizon. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> a reminder that coming up at noon the hudson institute will host a discussion on internet privacy. we'll have that for you live here on c-span2. until then, our conversation from this morning's "washington journal" with david becker, director of election initiatives for the pee center. he talked -- pew center.

he talked about the latest state trends in absentee voting. >> host: right now for a discussion on absentee voting, we want to turn the david becker who serves as director of election initiatives at the pew center on the states. mr. becker, as we look ahead to the november election, are there predictions about the numbers or a percentage of voters that will vote by absentee ballot this time around versus last time? >> guest: there are some predictions. absentee balloting and mail balloting in general has been expanding as an option over the years. there were about 30 million ballots that were cast -- can i'm sorry, about 40 million cast in 2008, about 30% of all ballots were cast by mail or absentee in 2008, and most are predicting about 30,000 being cast by mail this year. >> host: and talk about the difference between absentee balloting, early voting, and we also hear about provisional balloting, just so we know what we're talking about here. >> guest: right. there are several different types of balloting.

early voting is generally meant to describe early, in-person voting which is going in about 32 states plus d.c. allow early voting. but there's also mail balloting options, and even within those all mail balloting options are not created equal. there are excuse absentee ballot where you need to indicate an excuse like you're sick, or you're going to be out of the state on election day. there's also what's called no excuse absentee ballot where you can request a ballot for a particular election without any excuse whatsoever, and about 27 states and d.c. allow no excuse absentee balloting, and then several states allow -- about seven states plus d.c -- allow permanent absentee balloting where you just request a mail ballot, and it gets sent to you automatically, states like california and colorado for permanent absentee balloting, and there are a couple of states, washington and oregon, that require voters to vote by

mail. >> host: and when we talk about election fraud or people's vote just not getting counted, talk about absent see voting versus the traditional showing up at the voting booth. what are the issues we're dealing with ear. >> >> guest: most studies seem to indicate fraud occurs very rarely, if at all, but it's especially rare based on the studies that have occurred in-person voting. it's understandable it's more difficult, you have to present yourself in person. the poll workers might know you, etc. mail voting most experts agree is where if there's going to be fraud, it could more likely occur in mail voting. even then it appears it's exceedingly rare. however, many states do a very, very good job of making sure that the integrity of the ballot even by mail is very secure by doing things like signature matching. i mentioned the state of oregon where all of their votes are cast by mail. but they actually have human beings look at every single signature on we've one of the

ballots -- each one of the ballots. >> host: new york times did a story earlier this month about mail voting and the rise of voting by mail. here's a map showing the states, the darkest orange colors being the ones that have the largest amount of mail-in votings. and another thing "the new york times" story did was talk about errors that were made in mail voting, and one of the ways they compared it was to the minnesota 2008 senate race. and here's a separate chart talking about all the different ways in which voters vote mail-in ballots were thrown out, actually, having no address. one in about every 900 absentee ballot was thrown out missing or bad signature, one in 80 was probably the biggest cause, no witness signature, one in 230. what's being done to insure that these ballots aren't getting thrown out to make this process a little bit easier for folks?

>> guest: well, i think, importantly, a lot of states are doing very good work to make sure that, excuse me, that mail ballots do get counted when they're cast. and, of course, people who choose to vote by mail, um, by permanent absent see or no excuse absentee ballot in particular should take care to read the instructions very carefully because once it leaves their hands, it's gone for good, and it has to be completed in the wright way. they -- right way. they need to make sure they signed it accurately, they've filled the bubbles out properly or filled the ballot out properly. if someone goes to the polls and votes in person, often those kinds of mistakes can be caught before someone leaves the polls, so they should probably vote in person if they want to make absolutely sure. but if they choose to use the option of vote by mail, read the instructions because most states do try to do everything possible to count all of the absentee ballots. states like colorado have a very, very low absentee ballot

rejection rate, and many states have very low rejection rates. and overall the number of absentee ballots that are not counted is under about half a percent. >> host: if you have concerns about how to vote by absentee ballot, fraud concern, give us a call. david becker is the guy to talk about this. he's, again, from the pew center on the states director of election initiatives. republican line, 2023-535-3381. the democrats line, and the independent line 202-585-3882. a question that's come in from twitter, dave writes in: what is the actual penalty for knowingly submitting an absentee ballot and also live voting on november 6th, double voting? >> guest: um, it depends on the state. as in most case, the answers are it's going to be it depends on the state. in many cases you can cast an

absentee ballot and still vote on election day, and they will just void your absentee ballot. that would not be a penalty, they'll just make the last ballot count. but in other states if you choose to vote as well on election day intending to cast a second ballot, there would be some penalties, in many cases those could be felonies. >> host: which one is more prevalent? >> guest: you know, i don't know off the top of my head. if you have any questions, ask your local election official. >> host: excellent. we'll go to tracy from long beach, california, waiting on the independent line. tracy, you're on with david becker of the pew center on the states. >> caller: good morning, david. just a quick question. i was just wondering, how do you protect the sanctity of the vote if you're unable to verify these mail-in ballots? i mean, you couple that with like here in long beach, um, and i go to my precinct, i actually walk in and vote, and, i mean,

they never card anyone or ask for id. and to me, that just seems a recipe for fraud. and i get the pundits. there's only a minute amount of voter fraud, but the way i read it, jeez, it just seems to be a recipe for voter fraud. thank you very much. >> guest: sure, thanks, tracy. that's a really good question. of course, the states very much want to protect the integrity of their elections, and different states come to different conclusions how best to do that, but every state does have a way of protecting the integrity and insuring those that come in to vote or vote by mail are, in fact, the person they think they are. so in the case of states where, um, where you're voting by mail, that is often done through a signature match, and that's -- different states do it in different ways. as i mentioned, oregon actually has people look at every single signature on every single envelope and match it to the voter's record on file to make

sure it matches, and if there's questions, they can investigate it further. so i think people in the states, all the voters out there, should feel secure in knowing states do have processes in place to insure that the integrity of the ballot is protected. >> host: tracy's out in long beach, california. the registration deadline in long beach is october 22nd. absentee ballot request deadline is october 30th, and then early voting is also available in california october 8th through november 6th. a question for mr. becker on twitter. t. hooper writes in: what identification requirements are required to actually receive an absentee ballot other than a mailing address? >> guest: um, that again, also, varies by state. but in general if you've got information on your voter record and you've requested an act seven see -- absentee ballot consistent with that information, in most states that's going to be enough. of course, they will, again, check the signature to make sure once it's returned. but this raises a very, very

important point which is that if mail voting or any kind of voting, even in-person voting is to work best, we really need to make sure the voter records are up-to-date with the most accurate information. we have research that indicates about 1 in 8 voter records is no longer accurate because of the possibly of the population. about 30% of americans have moved between presidential elections. and election officials don't have the tools, excuse me, to keep up with that mobility. so for mail balloting in particular to work well, it's important to have the most accurate, up-to-date information on someone's address. we happy to be working with several -- happen to be working with several states to make sure they're having better tools available so they can accurately know where people live at any point in time. >> this is the electronic information registration center that you're talking about? >> guest: that's right. >>st and what are some of the states you're working with and what are are results so far? >> virginia, maryland and delaware, and they're sharing data with each other and more

common databases like national change of address and social security death index to try to identify people who have moved, people who have died and also people who may be eligible but are not yet registered so they can try to get those people registered in the most efficient way, usually online. what we've seen so far is that this is apparently working. we've only seen preliminary data. there have been several data errors that the states have been able to identify as a result of their participation in this project, things like wrong birth dates, bad addresses, etc. usually as a result of data entry errors because, as you can imagine, voter registration for most people is done using a paper form, and someone needs to decipher the handwriting and enter it be hand. so -- by hand. so states are seeing positive results as a result of participating in the electronic information registration center. >> host: california rolled out its system in mid center, and

220,000 used the system in its first two weeks. >> guest: right. that seems to be a remarkably effective tool at efficiently processing voter registration activity, encouraging people to update their information as much as possible. there are only two states that had online registration representing under 15 million americans in 2008, we have 13 states representing closer to 100 million americans who have access to online registration in 2012. >> host: let's go to jake, republican line. you're on with mr. becker on the pew center on the states. >> caller: yes, good morning. i'd like to get an answer as to why states keep not getting out absentee military ballots on time and why there shouldn't be a civil penalty for lack of the ballots they don't put out? >> guest: that's a great question, jake.

>> host: military absentee ballots? >> guest: everyone agrees that military absentee ballots need to go out in time, and there have been positive moves in this direction. in just the last few years, the federal government passed the overseas empowerment act which required ballots to go out at least 45 days in advance, electronically to military and overseas voters so they can be returned much earlier. >> host: do these voters have a particularly tough time getting their votes counted? >> guest: yes, they did. in 2009 research indicated voters were having a lot of difficulty of getting their ballots back on time. it'd take on average about 36 days. so they needed extra time, and that didn't account for any time for them to consider the ballot and actually vote it. it was very, very important that military and overseas voters have adequate time to vote by getting their ballots well in advance. states are doing a much better job at this, than i think

they've ever been doing before. but it is very important, there have been states and counties that have not quite gotten the ballot out, sometimes they have challenges because the ballot has not been set due to a variety of problems that might be going on with what candidates are listed and things of that sort. but states are doing a much better job, and if they don't get them out, there are, in fact, penalties that can be attached to that. in fact, i just heard today the romney campaign, i believe, sued the state of wisconsin over a few counties not having their ballots out in adequate time. so there's, there are remedies available to make sure that military and overseas voters do have adequate time to get their ballots back here and that they will be counted. >> host: and here's the headline from the october 7th issue of the new york times. error and fraud at issue as absentee voting rises. want to ask you, when it comes to these fraud issues, does it tend to benefit one party more than the other when we're looking at fraud when it comes

to absentee ballots? >> guest: you know, i think there's very little evidence that it benefits one party or the other or even that there's enough of it to benefit one party or the other if it was all on one side of the ledger. what i think is clear is that if states want to better protect the integrity of the elections, the best time is not at the very last moment of the election when someone casts a ballot, but at the much earlier stages when someone gets their information on the voter registration records and encourages them to keep that up-to-date. the biggest problem with integrity in this country and certainly the perception of integrity is that so many voter rolls are out of date because of mobility, not because of fraud, not because of death even, but the vast majority are because people, one in eight americans gives in any given year, about one in four young americans, and all that mobility, that churn in the voter rolls is very, very hard to track for election officials. of. >> host: does absentee voting, do more people tend to vote absentee republicans or

democrats, is one party usually favored more? >> guest: it varies by state, interestingly. so, for instance, some information just came out, i believe, today or yesterday that florida does see a slight lead in absentee voting for republicans, but that lead is much smaller for absentee voting for republicans than it was in 2008. on the other hand, early in-person voting in florida seems to be heavily democratic. but that isn't necessarily always going to be the case. and you have states like california which is a pretty safe democratic state, a deeply blue state where about 50% of voters choose to vote by mail. so i think it's, um, it doesn't necessarily always fit the generalization that mail voting benefits republicans, early in-person voting benefits democrats. and certainly to the individual voter, there are many reasons people -- without regard to partisan leanings -- might choose to vote early in person or choose to vote by mail or choose to experience the civic

engagement of voting on election day with your fellow citizens. >> host: on that subject of early voting, here's the story from the fix, that's the political column in "the washington post" that early voting favors democrats. early voting has edged past the $1 million -- one million mark, and although the numbers are still too few to draw broad conclusions, they show a democratic advantage. >> host: want to turn now to david on the democratic line from goldboro, north carolina. good morning, david. >> caller: good morning. mr. becker, the only thing i want to say to you is that you have a large military people,

and they are double potent here in north carolina. i can assure you i've talked so so -- to some people at the balloting places, and they said that the military here in north carolina double voting here in north carolina and back in their home states. can you make a comment on that? >> guest: yes. thanks, david. of course, it's very important for the integrity of elections to make sure that people are only voting once in each election. along the lines of what i was discussing before, election officials don't have the tools particularly across state lines to identify when someone may be double voting. that's one of the reasons we've helped facilitate the conversation with the states where they have partnered together to build the electronic registration information center. they need better tools to identify people who may be registered in more than one state, and there are people who are registered in more than one state. it's usually not fraudulent. the old state where they moved from just hasn't had an opportunity to know that they've

moved out of their state yet. but in those very rare cases where someone is doing that in order to double vote, the electronic registration information center and perhaps other tools that election officials have available will enable them to better identify people who have double voted in a particular election, because it is important to find those people and prosecute them. >> host: we're talking with david becker on the pew center on the states. what'd you do before pew? >> guest: i worked at the department of justice for seven years. >> host: question from twitter, cartop canine writes in with a question about when the absentee ballots actually get counted. question is, is it true that they will not count the absentee ballots if the top race is not close? >> guest: that is not true. that's a great question, i'm really glad you asked that. every state that i know of counts every ballot that comes in and can be counted -- >> host: even if there's not enough absentee ballots that would change the outcome of the election? >> guest: absolutely. every state that i know of counts every single ballot they

can count. now, they might not count one minute after election day. it takes time to -- after the polls close, rather: it takes time to process those ballots, but by the time the election is certified, your state is counting every single ballot that should be counted. >> host: one more question from twitter writes in, towns writes in: in most states' rush to enact id laws, isn't absentee ballot a more likely avenue for voter fraud? that is the case here in south carolina. >> guest: most experts agree that someone who wanted to commit voter fraud would commit it. it would appear to be more likely to occur when you can vote by mail remotely rather than voting in person. >> host: want to give you a rundown of some of the states that have the highest amounts of absentee or or voting by mail. oregon is at the top, 97% vote

by mail. this is from a chart in "the new york times"' piece followed by washington -- i'm sorry, washington's at the top at 98% followed by oregon at 97. colorado, 66% followed by arizona at 52% and then all the other states are below the 50% mark after that. want to go back to the phones. dylan is calling in from kansas this morning on the independent line. dylan, you're on with mr. becker. >> caller: good morning, guys. um, i have a question. i lived in a very small town of about a thousand people, and my mom, she's helped with several of the elections this year for the primaries back in march, and we've had special local elections. but she noticed whenever she did the voting rolls this year that she had marked several of the people that died, because it's a small town, we know most of the people in it, that she'd marked people that had died and sent it this that these people are deceased and need to be taken

off the rolls, and next election they were still on there. i imagine this is a big problem not only for kansas, but across the nation. what is it that can be done about it to take, take those people off that have already died? >> guest: that's a great question, dylan. the, um, you've identified a key problem and a challenge that the states have which is that they don't have tools adequate to be able to identify people who died because it's very difficult to match, um, john doe from their voter list to a john doe from a death list. and they'll tell you that even if you match name and birth date, that's not sufficient. and, of course, this is a particular challenge and probably more noticeable in smaller areas where you actually know the people and know they have died. in urban areas with large populations, you know, l.a. county runs elections for the county, and they're larger than all but, i believe, seven states. it'd be impossible to know some of this information. so what the states need is a better tool to match data much more confidently across multiple

sources. again, this goes back to the electronic registration information center which the seven states i mentioned, they're going to start getting much more higher quality data when someone has died. the states want to make extra sure, though, when they take someone off for having died, they want to make sure they get it right. the worst possible thing is someone shows up on election day and they're marked as having died, and they then are in the position where they have to argue with the poll worker saying, no, i'm not dead. so the states have a tremendous incentive, and this is true regardless of whether republicans or democrats are running elections, to make sure when they take someone off for having died, that they get that information right. so i think the states are looking for better tools to identify that. >> host: another question on twitter, do states notify a voter if there is a problem with your ballot? your mail-in ballot, let's talk about. >> guest: generally, they will not notify you if there's a

problem with your ballot. and remember, there's two parts of assessing a mail ballot. the first part is looking at the envelope and making sure you're an eligible voter. if the information matches, your signature matches and you never look at the ballot inside at that stage. the ballot is then separated from the envelope because it's important you not be able to connect the vote to the person. so once that envelope is separated from the ballot, there's no way to know who that ballot belongs to so they can contact you. so all the more reason you definitely read the instructions throughout that ballot and on the envelope. and if you have any questions at all about whether or not, um, there might be a problem with it, go in person, vote in person. if there's a problem with your ballot, they'll be able to tell you there. >> host: now, you worked on enforcement issues with the help america vote act at the justice department, talk about that

effort. >> guest: it was enacted in 2005 or 2004. and what it did was gave states money and required them to move towards more verifiable voting systems. it was somewhat a reaction to the 2000 election and particularly what happened in florida. but it also did some really positive things like required states to come up with what's called statewide voter registration databases. what states were seeing because counties often run elections in these states, is if someone moved within a state but between counties, from los angeles county to san diego county, for instance, in california, the counties might not necessarily have a really good way of tracking an in-state move and knowing that person moved. so the states have moved toward statewide voter registration databases so that, hopefully, everyone within a state only has one record within that state, and it ideally has the most accurate information possible. what we know is that often times that information is not particularly accurate and that the states need even better information to try to track those people as they move, try

to synchronize their data in their voter registration lists with things like motor vehicles, things like change of address information from the postal service, etc. >> host: let's go back to the phones. j.t. is from red oak, iowa, on the republican line. j.t., you're on with mr. becker from the pew center of states. >> caller: good morning, guys. thank you for showing up, mr. becker. this has been very inform informative this morning. i do have a question about, regarding the signature matching. i just don't understand how people can say that signature matching is a-okay whereby the government knows exactly what vote was made by whom and can get it done to the fine line of a signature. and yet, um, showing up with a magnetic-stripped, um, identification card at the polling place is seemingly out of the question for many. and also i have a comment

regarding how the voter fraud for the voting dead might be able to be waylaid, and that would simply be at the time the person's death certificate is signed by a funeral director x, there is also some type of denoter on that where it goes into the local, the local government's clerk of court or wherever that person is registered and shows that this person was registered to vote in, um, polling place x. go ahead, thank you very much. >> guest: sure. i think that might work. well, first with that, one of the challenges that people have with any kind of reports back to election officials is that, um, the data that can be matched is very difficult to match sometimes. so what might be on a death certificate, something like a name, perhaps even birth date, perhaps even an address doesn't necessarily match to what's in the voter file. for instance, if someone moved

since the last time they voted, the address is going to match. name and birth date statisticians will tell you it's not a good way to match 6789 there was a study done in the new jersey voting rolls, and they found about 1 in 3300 people shared names and birth dates but were, of course, different people. so you need multiple fields to match against to be absolutely sure because you do not want to remove someone from the voter rolls thinking they have died and having them not actually died. it's very important to get that right. so even reports from funeral homes aren't going to have adequate data, though they can certainly add to the quality of the data election officials have. so i think that's a great idea in addition to ore things to make sure that the information is 100% accurate. now, with regard to signature matching, the question you asked otherwise, it's -- different states have reached different policies with regard to how to guarantee the integrity of the elections, and it's always a balance between protecting the integrity of the elections, of course, and there are things that can be done that would be,

that would absolutely protect the integrity but would be extremely burdensome for voters and on the other hand making sure that you're not dissuading otherwise-eligible voters from coming and casting their ballot. the states have made that determination in a variety of ways. the states will tell you that signature matching is effective, and they're quite comfortable with signature matching and, of course, it's done in all kinds of walks of life to insure the integrity of any particular transaction. um, states, other states require id. that's their policy decision. states are going to have different decisions but, of course, id is not a full proof method of verifying someone's identity either. ask any 19-year-old at college whether an id is an absolutely full-proof method of anying someone's information, so there's a variety -- >> host: does pew advocate for any specific fix to any of these problems? >> guest: so we don't work in the field of voter id.

we think it's appropriate that the states reach their own policy determinations, what's right for each state might be different. but in the area of voter registration, we do believe that elections can be approved administratively, proved from the perspective of the voter, costs can be reduced and also the integrity can be increased by giving election officials better tools to manage their voter rolls to make sure that all eligible voters, but only eligible voters, have easy access and make sure their information is up-to-date. >> host: are candidates adjusting their campaign spending base on large numbers of the population voting early? >> guest: that's actually a really great question. perhaps one of the few things the obama and romney campaigns agree on is they want their voters to get out early, and they're mobilizing their resources to get as many people voting early or absentee as possible. and the reasons are pretty clear. if you can get someone to vote early or request an absentee

ballot and return it early, that means that the particular campaign can mark that supporter off their list and start to focus their resources as we get closer to election day on just those voters who haven't yet voted to mobilize them. whenever they can take their limited resources and focus them on a smaller sliver of the electorate, that's going to be beneficial to them. so both campaigns very much encouraging voters to go out and vote early or absentee. >> host: let's go to betty down in florida on the democratic line. you're on with david becker. >> caller: yes, mr. becker, and thank you, c-span, for your programs. i am in broward county in florida, and once you request an absentee ballot, they automatically send a ballot, absentee ballot to you for every other election. in the last election, we had a commissioner's wife that turned in 400 absentee ballots and on them four felonies had voted and one deceased person. i think there should be a limit

on how many ab -- absentee ballots a person can turn in, and i don't think you should automatically get an absentee ballot and not automatically for every election. and that's what i have to say, and thank you very much, and i enjoy your programs very much and thank you very much. >> host: thanks, betty. >> guest: thanks, weptty. well, of course, one of the things about absentee ballots is when you request one, they only get mailed to your address on record. so one of the reasons that even the relatively small amount of absentee ballot fraud that has occurred has been detected is because election officials do look for when large amounts of ballots are going to newly-registered voters who weren't on the rolls before or to the same address. so they're looking for that kind of information, and often it's detected by the election officials, and that's why we know about it. and it's usually prosecuted. but the vast majority, um, of

absentee ballots are legitimately requested, and they have to go to the address the voter has on file. so someone can't submit an absentee ballot application to a different address than the voter has on file and receive it. it'll come to your address even if you didn't know about it. so there are protections built in because it has to originate from the address on file. all the more reason that address on file has to be accurate from the very beginning. >> host: got about a minute left here for you, but one more tweet question, perhaps a very basic question, but right as rain requests: please, ask the guest who is tabulating the votes for this presidential election. >> guest: so another good question. the way it works is your local election officials in every jurisdiction are actually tabulating the votes. they start counting the votes as soon as the polls close. we as americans tend to be a little impatient, and we want to get the results right away, sometimes it takes a little bit of time, but they're doing their best to tabulate all of the

votes as soon as possible. some votes take longer to actually tabulate than others. some votes like the votes that are cast in polling places, it might depend on how long the ballots can actually get from the polling place to the county offices where those ballots are counted. um, of course, absentee ballots might come in after the deadline if they're postmarked by the deadline, in some states they are count and, of course, overseas and military ballots might come in after the polls closed. they would be counted as well. so the final count would happen on what's called a certification date which is often several days or even weeks after the election, but the initial count all done by the counties starting on election night, and in our experience, i think, the united states is really lucky to have as many professional election officials as they do. >> host: david becker from the pew center on the states, thanks so much for joining us today. >> well, coming up shortly we'll go live to the hudson institute for a discussion on internet privacy looking at proposals

from congress and the executive branch and considering the government's role in online privacy. that is coming up live in about ten minutes, live at noon eastern here on c-span2. also for you today later, education advisers to the obama and romney campaigns will talk about their candidate's education platforms. that starts at 4:30 eastern right here on c-span2. a look inside of the debate hall once again in the hack center at -- mack center at hofstra university in new york. final preparations underway for the second presidential debate. president obama will be heading to the area from williamsburg, virginia, where he's been rehearsing. he'll land in new york at about 1:00 this afternoon. mitt romney and the president will get a chance to practice here sometime this afternoon for the town hall-style debate. our cameras will not be allowed to see any of that.

[background sounds] >> watch and engage as we bring you live coverage of the debate beginning with our preview program starting at 7 eastern. the debate itself will start at 9, it'll be a town hall style with questions coming from the audience, 90 minutes moderated by cnn's candy crowley. and it'll be available on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. well, as the candidates prepare this morning we talked with a reporter to give us an idea what we should expect to see during tonight's debate. >> host: want to bring you to, though, "the wall street journal" reporter this morning, peter nichols joins us to talkts

about the debate today. peter, thanks for joining us this morning. >> guest: good to be with you. >> host: want to talk about the debates so far and your thoughts about how this town hall format works out. just exmain it for folks on how the questions and answers will be conducted with candidates. how this town hall format will work to the folks. caller: uncommitted voters will be asking questions. each candidate will get two minutes to answer the question. and then the moderator will have another two minutes to have a discussion based on the question of. both campaigns are used -- concerned that the moderator might use too much discretion, but the rules of the debate are that he will have to follow the original question. for example, if they ask about the deficit, the moderator

cannot suddenly stepped in to talk about libya. uncommitted voters are people who are undecided or might be leaning towards one candidate or another, but open to changing their minds. they have been selected by the gallup organization. the idea is for the candidates to interact with real people and take questions from real people about their lives and concerns. host: steve sculley sat down with the moderator to talk about the debate. want to play a bit of that now. [video clip] >> we have asked those folks to come with a few questions that they're interested in hearing the answers to, so that we can format that this is an interesting subject. it will be -- it will feel like

and be a conversation, as opposed to here is a random question, random question, random question. it is about rolling one question into the next. we select and look at the question. in my mind i am thinking this candidate may go this way or that way, do we even need a follow-up in winnowing down into these details? host: peter nichols to assess this morning from "the wall street journal." your headline is "town hall format could dull the barbs in second debate." explain that a little bit more for us. >> president obama needs to show some energy in this debate. it was lacking in his first debate in denver.

his supporters are looking to see someone who is challenging mitt romney and showing some fight that we did not see before. quoting democratic officials from the mexico, she watched the debate with a sense of dismay and she worried about how she was going to talk about this debate to democrats and independent voters that she needs to get out to the polls. he has to show that he is willing to take on mitt romney and defend his record, yet this town hall format is one where real people will be on stage and asking poignant and pointed questions about their own lives. it is a risk for the candidates to take these questions and just use them as an opportunity to attack each other. they want to come away feeling

that the candidates have addressed this issue. that they do not feel like props. people are warning about that. from bill clinton told a group of donors in los angeles that it is not a format, which is one of the challenges that obama will face tonight. host: this is your headline in today's "the wall street journal." of

host: before we let you go, any talk about the topics tonight? >> guest: no, she hasn't. candy has the discretion to choose the questions. she'll be picking the questions. the topics will include domestic and foreign policy. i think we can expect that the topics will -- the questions will reflect people's real lives and real experiences. people are having difficulties a with foreclosures. the economic downturn has affected so many people. unemployment remains high. so i think we can, people are worried, obviously, about, um, what's happening in libya and afghanistan. so i think we can expect questions that are drawn from people's real life experience. i think it'll be a debate that'c going to be unique, and it will present a chance for both candidates to show they can

relate to the c audience. and that might be a challenge for both of them. barack obama's perceived as somewhat distant and aloof inba some respects, and so is mitt romney. as somewhat distant and aloof in some respects, but so is mitt romney. it should be very different from what we saw in denver. >> and a look now at spin alley in the mack center at hofstra university for the debate tonight. this is where reporters are gathering and where they'll cover the event. this is also what representatives from both campaigns will try to spin the media's coverage of the debate in their candidate's favor. we will bring our cameras live here at the conclusion of the debate, that'll be about 10:30 ian, so you can see that all take place. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a number of interviews taking place there. we saw michigan governor jennifer granholm, former governor granholm in the spin alley area at hofstra university. again, our live coverage starts with our preview program at 7 eastern tonight, the debate itself will start at 9. it'll be a town hall style, questions are coming from the audience of 80 members, mostly undecided voters from long island. it'll be moderated by cnn's candy crowley. live coverage on c-span, c-span

radio and, of course, online at c-span.org. again, shortly we'll go to the hudson institute, but right now, though a look at the electoral college map as we get closer to election day. >> want to take you now to every tuesday up until election day, we'll be getting electoral scoreboard updates from a variety of publy -- publications. today we'll be looking at "the new york times" scoreboard with michael sheerer. thanks for joining us. michael sheer, thanks for joining us. michael, you there? >> guest: yeah, i'm here. can you hear me? >> host: give us an update on what the map shows today. where do you have the racesome. >> guest: well, today we have barack obama with 237 electoral votes either in his camp solidly or leaning to barack obama,