>> today, the house budget committee begins work on the 2015th budget plan which would spend 42 trojan horse dollars over the next 10 years. 5 trillion less than projections. the markup session begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern. >> and now live to london for british prime minister's question time. each week the house of commons is in session we bring you david

cameron taking questions from members of the house of commons live wednesday mornings here on c-span2. we also invite your participation via twitter using hashtag pmq. prior to question time members are finishing up other business. and now live to the floor of the british house of commons. >> i thank my honorable friend for his kind words about my role in seeking additional funding for the center. they do fantastic work. i am of course aware of the concerns they are not able to access funds which provided solely for people in northern ireland but, of course, sadly there are many victims of terrorism in great britain and it is vital those victims have also sport they need in this government -- support. >> last question. can we have a bit of order in the house?

preferably with you the secretary of state as well. >> has the second estate actually scoped what legislative measures would be required from her and respect other proposals in the past and also want authorizations and directions would be needed for ministerial colleagues in whitehall? >> the advice i've been given is westminster legislation would not be required if the parties decided to implement the half of seven proposal, apart from a devolution of parading. i advise all to be done by legislation in the assembly but am happy to review this matter in discussion with him at a later date. >> questions for the prime minister. jeremy corbyn. >> question number one mr. speaker,. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today.

>> jeremy corbyn. >> is the prime minister of where not this time in britain come in england 3,956,000 people are in the private renters section? the organization rand finds two-thirds feel secure, half of them think they pay far too much in rent. does he not think it's time to end the social cleansing of the inner-city britain by bringing in the proper rent regulation with a fair rent formula and regulation to get people security and piece of mind where they live? >> where i'm sure he and i would agree is the need to build more houses including houses in the private rental sector. where i think is wrong is full on rent controls been tried in the past. tended to destroy the private renting sector, driver go back to the state sector increase the quality of housing as a result.

>> in the week when the right honorable friend, the chancellor of the exchequer has spoken of the informs of the government of securing full employment, can my right honorable friend confirm that the record shows that no labour government in history left office with unemployment lower than when -- [shouting] >> does this not illustrate in this area the importance of the principles what matters is what works of? >> my right honorable friend is factually correct. every labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when he came to office. in this parliament what we have seen is 1.7 million more people employed in the private sector, 1.3 million more people employed as a whole what are the highest

rates of employment in her history and we must keep up the work to offer more hope, more security to more of our people. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker mr. speaker, can the prime minister tell the house what is his excuse for the royal mail fiasco? >> what i would say about the royal mail is that taxpayers benefited from selling the business for 2 billion pounds. that, of course, is 2 billion pounds that the party opposite never achieve because they were never able to sell the business. >> mr. speaker, here's what his own side are saying about this issue. the members north said yesterday it was a debacle, unethical and immoral. he sold the shares for 330 p. what are they trading at now? >> they are trading ahead of where they were sold at the fact

is this when the right honorable gentleman -- [shouting] >> order. nine -- neither the perimeter nor the leader of the opposition nor any other member in this house must be shouted down. the prime minister. >> when the right honorable gentleman was sitting in the cabinet, this business lost half a billion pounds. it is now in the private sector. it is making profit. it is paying taxes. itis working hard for our country. and more to the point, there are over 140,000 people who work for the post office delivering letters come delivering parcels who own shares in a business that they work for. [shouting] >> they've got a stake in the future of the royal mail. they're collecting dividends as as well as pay and that something we should all be proud of. [shouting]

>> ed miliband. >> he can't answer the question because it's such an embarrassment. he sold a 330 p. and this morning the price was 563p. it is basic math mr. speaker. not so much the wolf of wall street. more the dunce of downing street. [shouting] let me ask him this. if royal mail was sold at today's price how much more with the taxpayer have made? >> mr. speaker, i will take a lecture for all those anyone in the country about the sale of royal mail but not from the two muppets who advised the last chancellor from selling the gold. [shouting] not a word of apology for 9 billion pounds wasted. the royal mail privatization has got 2 billion pounds for the

taxpayer, 140,000 employees owning shares, 700000 members of the public will who are now shareholders. this is a great success for our country and something he should be praising. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, again he can't answer the question. the answer is for the taxpayer would have got 1.4 billion pounds less for this vital asset that is is worth today. here's the thing mr. speaker, it -- >> order. when the prime minister was speaking i said he shouldn't be shouted down and neither should anybody else. however, hard effort is made to shut someone down it won't work because we'll just keep going. so the sooner the juveniles can grow up and reach adulthood, so much the better. ed miliband. >> and here's the thing mr. speaker, a third of the shares were sold for just 1650 investors. and get this. there was a gentleman's agreement that those investors

wouldn't sell their shares. what happened? within weeks half of those shares have been sold and they had maybe killingworth hundreds of millions of pounds. in other words -- his friends in the city. maybe he can tell us, what happened to that gentleman's agreement about those shares? >> mr. speaker, we know what he's asking these questions because he is paid to buy the trade union. [shouting] yes, yes. mr. speaker, he sat in a cabinet, he sat in the cabinet that wanted to privatize the royal mail. that was their commitment. and what happened was the general secretary of the communications workers union said this, in terms of the last labour government they try to privatize the royal mail. it was the union that brought the government to its senses.

once again they were weak in government because they couldn't carry out their policies. they are weak in opposition because they don't support shareholding by post workers in the royal mail. they are weak because they've got no economic policy and they are weak because they have got no plan. >> is bush off his friends in the city and he can't answer the question. now i'm going asking the question begin. there was a gentleman's agreement that these long-term investors, so-called, would not sell their shares. but half of them were sold and hundreds of minutes of pounds were made. what happened to the agreement? answer the question. >> what happened is the taxpayer is 2 billion pounds better off. yes. and anyone who sold shares has missed out on what is a successful business. but the truth is this mr. speaker, he sat in a cabinet that wanted to privatize the royal mail. they couldn't do it -- >> order.

let's hear the answer. the prime minister. >> they couldn't do because the trade unions won't let them. they are now 140000 shareholders working for the royal mail. there are almost three quarters of million members of the public with shears. these are signs for celebration in our country, not talking them down. because their anti-market antibusiness. nothing has changed in the labour party. the one they advertise this way for someone to bring some fresh ideas. [shouting] i've got the commercial here. it says this, mr. speaker. you should have the ability to manage the different teams across the labour party. [shouting] i think that must be the hardest job in britain. no wonder they are looking for a change because they have a leader who hasn't got a clue. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, is gone as red as a postbox and that's because

he knows they lost 1.4 billion pounds for the taxpayer. this is the sale nobody wanted and nobody voted for. natural -- national asset sold. it's a symbol of the government who stands up for the wrong people, the with the british people paying the price of. [shouting] >> it's a sale nobody wanted. it was in his manifesto. [laughter] it was a commitment of the last government. they worked -- they work so hard, mr. speaker they fail to do it but this coalition government privatized the royal mail, created shareholders can have a great working -- a great business working for shareholders. they are advertising for fresh ideas. people around him are fighting like ferrets in the sack.

their top advisers called army and is gone to america. but unlike army he says i'm not coming back. [shouting] they are warring the week and they haven't got a plan. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. it is as quick to go to 125 miles from here to brussels as it is on the train to norwich. will my right honorable friend agree with me that we need investment in better, faster rail and it will bring those benefits to businesses and passengers in norfolk, suffolk and essex speak was i pay tribute to the honorable lady and others for the work they're doing on the norwich task force. this is a very important project. i welcome the interest shown by business leaders, local authorities and enterprise partnerships. it is one of the fastest-growing parts of her country. it's got world-class companies and universities, better support

and i look forward to the task force report that i know she is working on and i hope this will be used to shape the specification for the long rail franchise that should start in 2016. >> mr. speaker, 35 years ago the tories united to bring down a labour government and bring in -- [shouting] [inaudible] doesn't this demonstrate what people across uk need is not separation in scotland and england, but liberation from right wing tory economic? >> he has provided i think a very useful public service which has reminded me of one useful thing the snp has done in the history which was to get rid of

that dreadful labour government that nationalized british industry made such a mess. mess. why don't agree. why don't agree with him, i grew with him on one very important thing in spite of his views i do agree that united kingdom is much better off together but one of the issues he raised i think is completely wrong about. this is the week we have cut corporation tax to 21%. that is going to attract businesses into england them into whales come into scotland come into northern ireland. he should be standing up in praising this rather than criticizing it. >> he would give more weight to consultants economic model than two and i quote 10,000 objections from local people. is that with the national planning framework really meant by empowering local people? >> the national planning framework is very clear about the importance of listening to local people in terms of development, and actually my

honorable friend would have received a letter recently to explain some of the changes in the guidance under the framework to make sure for instance that previous housing performance by local council is taken into account in the very important decisions. >> thank you, mr. speaker. at a time of unprecedented crisis the prime minister saw firsthand just a good the hospital in my constituency can be. six years into the rebuilding program the hospital was plunged into crisis, short of staff and stripped of key clinical services. the nearest hospital isn't just down the road. it's 42 miles away in carlisle. that is struggling to with the prime minister commit today to do everything he can to assist me local commissions and my committee in retaining consultant services to the hospital? >> he is entirely right i saw myself what an excellent job as hospital does and how important it is but what i would say to him is of course the group total revenues that are debatable this

year is an increase of 2.3% 663 million pounds. that is because this government decided to protect nhs spending and not cut in a just spinning and that is why important hospital department can go ahead ahead. >> more people seeking to become self-employed. can my friend tell the house what steps his government is taking to support first time entrepreneur's in the coming first time in employers and helping people achieve their ambitions in life? >> he is right. what we need to do is make it easier for someone to take on the first employee and that is why this saturday we're bringing in the 2000 unemployment allowance which comes into force on sunday which means basically every business that employs someone will see a tax reduction of up to 2000-pound. that means 55,000 businesses will be taken out of pay national insurance constitutions altogether was the party opposite introduced jobs taxes

we are cutting jobs taxes. >> at the weekend the journal warned reducing the regular army to 82000 by 2020 would weaken armed forces and what one hell of a risk to take. and the prime minister can tell the house what he thinks it isn't one hell of a risk of? >> i think the reason why it's the right thing to do is what is most important of all is to make sure that our armed forces have the best equipment of any armed forces anywhere in the world. and had to say to the honorable lady i've been to afghanistan every year since 2006 sometimes twice a year, and avoid asked the same question. do you have the equippage need? is there anything else you want? it's under this government using improvement in equipment. so what i would say to serve -- said to her is yes will have a radio army, we'll also have a larger reserve forces and we are recruiting for that very actively. we will have armed forces and

defense equipment that this country can be proud of. >> thank you, mr. speaker. following last week review of the development, it is vital we move quickly with projects for the south bank. does my right honorable friend share my view that all parties must work together to make sure they don't need to become the green energy capital of the the? >> i agree with my honorable friend. the announcement is a huge step for because i think it's going to bring an enormous amount of industry in its wake in terms of supply and component manufacture. we need to make sure the colleges are trading up apprenticeship ukti is working to attract other businesses to the area and as he knows, the are still agreements that are needed in other parts to make sure all the developers necessary go ahead. >> the prime minister will know that millions across the country value and love the post office card account.

particularly those who don't have access to banks and don't want to have a bank. they want to get the cash each week. this is not being renegotiated. will he give a commitment today that whatever happens, pensioners and, indeed, everyone on benefit or other benefits will be able to access to the post office to get the money that they need to? >> i will look very carefully what she says but it is important for people to be able to use the post office in the way she says. there have been changes in terms of the way the card account works were a strong supporter and i will close to what she says and perhaps write to her. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with my right honorable friend state on this one of the anniversary of the first world war the territorial army 171 and thousands of other decorations in the war and that was learning the lessons of our english-speaking cousins over in

america have a pivotal role with the national guard has played both in iraq and in afghanistan? that is the way to ensure we can afford the equipment that we need for our armed forces for future. >> let me pay tribute to my honorable friend who has campaigned very long and hard for our territorial army and for the other reserve forces. the point he makes is a good one. you can see in afghanistan today, our territorial army working alongside the regular army fighting with them and being decorated with them in the brave actions that they pursued other countries have shown it is possible to the larger reserve force alongside the regular force and that is the way to have a well-equipped and flexible army, navy, air force for the future. >> thank you the convention says the european white standards for the protection of children against sexual exploitation the uk have signed it but have not yet classified it. following episodes of growing into kindling in my untested

just it was government now consider classifying this very important convention? >> what i can say to the honorable gentleman as i agree with him that child sexual exploitation is an important crime. we're determined to step it up the we've seen disturbing cases not just in a rock star but also in the county i represent in oxfordshire. as he said with scientific and convention. i understand there's for the assessment to be done for the uk is in position to ratify the convention a perhaps i'll keep in touch. >> does my friends agree with me that the public the capital allowances to have them in balance provides welcome to boost manufacturers in the backcountry will increase investment in manufacturing sector securing more jobs for british people? >> my boyfriend is absolutely right. this is a key part of a long-term economic plan to make sure we get our businesses investing. i thought one of the remarkable

things about that budget was all the way said we would address some of the perennial weaknesses in the british economy. we need to export more. we need to invest more. we need to improve our performance in those regards. we need to make sure that investment is spread around our country. and unlike the party opposite we will not be satisfied with an unbalanced recovery. >> mr. speaker today the ford motor company agreed a multimillion pound contribution towards the pension fund a former ford employees. will be prime minister congratulate unite union alongside a cross party group of mps who struggle to get -- [shouting] struggle to get at their deal for all the ford workers and agree with other pensioners and will they take the same flight -- [shouting] >> i didn't catch the into this question i wholeheartedly agree

with them. this is a good developer for pensioners and all those who played a role that i think of colleagues have been involved in this think there to be credited for the work they've done with for to make sure we get justice. >> while i welcome the government intervention on fuel bills, many rural people do not benefit but depend on more expensive fuel. will the government investigate a way in which they can benefit these customers who often live in poverty? >> i think my friend raise an important point regarding people who are often guessed it means people i've had in my constituency. i think there are things we can do not least in encouraging the power of group purchasing by encouraging communities to come together and by oil and gas together so that actually can drive down prices. i'm sure he will be looking at the options of able in his constituency. >> thank you, mr. speaker. three months ago i asked the prime minister about his 1000-pound bobby tax that anyone

joining the police have to pay. [laughter] >> 1000 pounds might not be much to him but is having a huge impact -- finding it impossible to recruit. we all know the bobby tax -- >> order order to this question are will be heard. sneering and making rude remarks is the sort of thing the public despise. the honorable lady will be heard and the person sneering atheist any sense of shame ought to be ashamed of himself. >> mr. speaker, this is an important issue to everybody who lives in this country. we all know that bobby tax is wrong but will the prime minister also now except it's not working and abolish it in order our please get back to strength to defend people in my constituency?

>> first of all it is not a tax. second of all it is not a barrier to recruitment, and third of our equipment is taking place in the metropolitan police. yes, of course we see police reductions in police funding but we've also seen significant cuts in crime. i'm proud to say the metropolitan police are recruiting and they're confident they will be able to get a good recruit. >> bringing superfast broadband to rural areas is violent important and the government is rightly spending over 1 billion pounds on this. my constituents are very frustrated that we can tell them when or if they will be connected. will the prime minister tell them to produce clear plans for the taxpayers money that they're getting? >> i have had this discussion in the mapping to hold it again and i know my honorable friend will take up this specific point which is we have been to give more details about which homes

and areas will get broadband in the rollout plans so that in other companies and other organizations are able to see whether their different ways of filling in any potential gaps. but i don't agree with some who think that somehow bt have not been put in their shoulder to the wheel. massive investment going on in terms of broadband, 10,000 homes and businesses are being connected every week and this is every success story for our country. >> mr. speaker -- [inaudible] does the prime minister rule out paying from taxpayers money to its government advisers? >> what i would say to the honorable lady is the taxpayer is 2 billion pounds better off because we were able to put this business into the private sector where the previous government failed miserably.

>> mr. speaker, i had a constituents seeking the right to be treated by the english n. i s. with a premise to invest it what can be done to her and other refugees who are seeking the high standard -- being delivered by this government? >> my friend is right to raise this because, frankly, what is happening in our nhs in wales is a scandal and it is a scandal that is entirely the responsibility of the labour party who are are running the welsh are a silly. they made is the decision to cut image as passionate nhs spending in wales. they have not met the target since 2009. the last time -- i don't know what the leader of the offices in is laughing but it's not funny the state of the nhs in wales. it get any backbone he would get hold of the first minister in and he would tell them to start investing in the nhs in wales.

[shouting] >> twenty-five years ago yesterday -- [shouting] with the prime minister take this opportunity to apologize for that? >> i didn't catch the beginning of the honorable gentleman's question i don't know if it's possible for them to ask it again, try to i know it's the same as the scottish national party. >> twenty-five years ago yesterday, -- [inaudible] primus to have been kicked out by one party. will the primus to take this opportunity to apologize for that? >> i've made clear my get about this issue many times over many, many years but i think the council tax is a much better replacement of the keynote is to keep the level of the council tax benefit that his wife on this that the vast we support a

freeze. >> in 2012, 150,000 people petitioned this house to stop charitable there and having to pay vat on fuel. and i think the prime minister force actions in the 2014 budget which will mean more missions are flown and more lives are saved? as he greets only possible because the using the libor funds for good purposes and because whenever long-term economic plan? >> my friend is right. can i pay tribute to him because he is the founder and the chair of the all party group for air and lenses. he campaigned i was on this is you. he led a debate in the house in 2012. i'm delighted about the result was achieved in the budget. i think as he said he would lead to an expansion of the service but he's also right can you can only make these decisions if you look after the nation's resources, control public spending, get the deficit down if you have a long-term economic plan to. >> thank you, mr. speaker. why has it taken four years to

recruit just 41 teachers into the 10 million pounds to the teachers program? >> we support the troops to teachers program but i will look very carefully at what the honorable gentleman says it i think it is a good idea a proposal to want to make sure it is working. >> mr. speaker it appears on my council tax bill that the council and the labour led lancaster district council have raised the council tax like 2%. yes, very shortly. with the prime minister tell me -- helping find out what is really going on? is at 2%? help me solve this matter out spent what i would say to my honorable friend that he can take a lunch -- to his district county, this government is making the money available so that councils can freeze their council tax. so there's no excuse for councils don't want to take that step. they should help people keep

their bills down and make sure the council tax is frozen. >> the high school community in my constituency was left devastated just before christmas when a 14 year-old jimmy skinner died when football. [inaudible] >> i think the whole house will agree with what the honorable gentleman says. this was an absolutely shocking accident that people would've seen across the country and the hearts will go out to the family and all those involved in the school. only less and less willing to make sure tragedies -- accidents like this do not happen again. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the challenge was has a great

news -- [inaudible] it will do nothing to over 20,000 large companies. it's got rid of the fuel duty escalator to and with me now tackle the problem by getting rid of the escalator and? >> first of all can i think my honorable friend for what he said about the cut in duty. the second row in budget. this is about making sure this industry create jobs and supporting our public trade the they announced three does an additional jobs. we do want to look very carefully about what is happening in pubs and activities of some pub companies. it's been debated in this house and we are looking very closely at what more we can do to make sure there are fair outcomes are britain's pub goers. >> can i ask the prime minister what plans he's got to reform

higher education student loans so the system works for students, works for all universities, and also works for country? >> the biggest plan we have in this space is to expand the number of people going to higher education by taking the cap off the numbers who can attend. there are plans in terms of fees and repayments are clearly set out. what i said to the house is it's encouraging it has not put off people from going to university nor has a put off people from low-income backgrounds going to university. but i would make this point in time is that someone said in june 2010, someone said this, a graduate tax would replace up front tuition fees. i will consult widely with before publishing detailed plans later this year. that was the leader of the opposition in june 2010. now i know we did with a blank page and an empty head but for heaven's sake, get on with it. >> with the prime minister agreed it is the shared hard

work -- [inaudible] >> very good. i'm delighted they are taking on that label to look it's an important week for british business and for british families. this week corporation tax is been cut to make our businessebusinesse s stronger. 10,000 personal allowances being introduced to our families stronger and we of the 2000-pound employment allowed to make small businesses stronger. we have 3 million people who now would've been taken out of income tax altogether. that is what is happening in our country. our economy is getting stronger and everyone can see labour's arguments are getting weaker all

the time. [shouting] >> order. >> here on c-span2 we will now leave the british house of commons as members move onto other business. you've been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays when part of it is in session. a reminder that you can see this weeks session began sunday sunday nights at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org, click on the series debuted every program we've had from the bridge house of commons since october 1989. we invite your comments about prime minister's questions via twitter using hashtag pmq. >> monday a panelist of tax poses cost discuss how to rewrite the federal tax code and the politics of tax reform. this event and the urban institute is an hour and a half.

>> welcome to the urban institute and the urban-brookings tax policy center. i'm very excited about this event today. we're going to be talk about tax reform which is the holy grail of tax policy desperate sought after. there are rumored sightings all the time and always elusive. they been a lot of recent sightings of tax reform. dave camp came out with a very ambitious plan which got people very excited for a few minutes. braun has promised after extends the 5000 stupid tax extenders for the last time they will be tax reform and it will never

happen again. president obama called tax reform commission the independent tax from commissions. were lots of commissions. which must think the tax reform is coming soon. by the way tomorrow is april fools day. i don't want to steal the thunder of this group. these are people actually know exactly how we will get the tax reform and tell us how to get there. the moderator who introduced them is howard gleckman who is senior fellow at the tax policy center and also the blogger and editor in chief of tax block blog. one of the piece of information. i googled holy grail before today's talk and it has been found. it's in the basilica in spain. the tax reform is really coming.

>> thank you. this is an unusual event. normally we have economists up your debating the policy merits of tax reform. today we have scientists talking about the politics of tax reform. and it's a very challenging issue. how can congress enact a complicated hard to explain initiative that has no natural constituents constituency say for the economist who come to these things? as well as issues that politicians love at 30,000 feet. is something about the cutting rates and closing loopholes, tax reform has innumerable friends. but once they get down to the dirty work of identifying what those loopholes ours pashtun loopholes are, and they turn out to be subsidies that benefit nearly everybody, the lawmakers mostly fall silent. dave camp, a rare exception to that. the challenge then is how can

supporters of reform when a public consensus around an agenda they really don't want to explain? is it possible to win public support for reform? is it necessary? we'll hear about the 86 act and then answer some questions about that. if it is highly do. to answer these questions were pleased to three leading political scientist who spent a good part of their careers thinking about issues like tax reform. karlyn bowman, senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. chris faricy mexico is there to university and bill galston brookings institution to build his top domestic policy adviser to president clinton where representatives beginning of the ultimate here. it turns out we will go in alphabetical order. to karlyn, you want to get us started? >> thank you. howard has asked if i set the

stage device a few words about tax attitude in the mid 1980s and today. but first i'd like to see a little bit about the polls i watch at aei on many different subjects. there are very useful to understand complex and i don't think they should ever be used to make policy where the issues tax form or a d. grade for the professionalization of college athletics. they are too blunt tools for that purpose. publics rarely ever get specific legislative advice. they start their deliberations about their values. there are other problems in making any kind of sweeping judgments, sweeping assertions from limited amount of public polling data we have in the tax area overall. not only are the response rates of well-designed surveys now around 10% but perhaps more troubling is that many of the major pollsters are no longer updating the valuable trends they've had in pastures in areas such as taxes. they have become the handmaidens

of the media delving into the subject when it's a hot media story and then simply dropping it. at least half a dozen major pollsters were in the field asking questions about the iris are getting specific political groups when that news story broke. since the story faded in the news, there has been one question about the irs. now let me turn to in 1986 about the tax reform. in congressional testimony in 2011 gina sterling of the of institute reminded us when ronald reagan first asked for a study on taxes on its 1984 state of the union message congress burst into laughter. gene identified a number of reasons. he felt the texture from was successful. he talked first about seizing today's opportunity to mention individual tax shelters were running amok at that point. households were burying heavy a burden, high tax rates plus inflation make an attack situation worse and that the income tax system was becoming more complex.

but there were other factors that are not present today but were in 1986 that may have been helpful in moving the reforms forward. although i don't expect public opinion to be centrally involved in tax overall, the public opinion climate was very different in 1986. gallup reported in march that year the public mood was the brightest on record. compared that to the very sour mood since 2008. reagan's approval rating in the spring of 1986 was 63% in his approval rating has been above 60% every month since july 1985. congresses approval rating in the spring of 86 was 42%. its approval rating dipped below 10% in several polls last year. around 40% pollsters said they trusted the government in washington to do what was right, just about most of the time but in january 2014 15% gave that

response to a quinnipiac. still there's very little evidence americans were following the tax reform debate closely in 1986 after the senate passed its bill in july 26% told gallup they had no opinion of the tax reform proposals. of the remainder 38% were in favor and 36% were opposed. taxi from wasn't a top public priority in 1986. it isn't today which franklin may make it easier to get the work done. pollsters in january 2014 asked about the top priorities for the administration and congress. economy and jobs of course topped every list but tax reform or closing tax loopholes or taxes in general didn't rank in the top five in a single one of these polls. one of the many reasons for people's disinterest in texas when a 1986 and perhaps that this interest today is when people hear reform, they think it means their taxes are going to go up. even those people in the lowest income group in 1986 who were

probably removed from the tax rolls thought their taxes would go up under the reform. politicians promises on tax reform simply are not credible. in many ways the public opinion climate is different from what it was in 1986 but some things the belief that no matter what happens my taxes are going to go up are remarkably similar. let me make two final points about tax attitude. some unusual trends we are seeing in the polls. in 1986 most people said their federal income taxes were too high, but we have seen something quite interesting since 1986 and the gallup trend that takes -- dates back to 1946. in june 1985 63% told gallup that the taxes were too high and the third about right. we've seen a big drop in the proportions saying that federal income taxes are too high. today there's a much closer division of opinion between the two high in the about right

response. in a number of polls be about right response exceeds the two high response and that's an enormous changed since the mid 1980s. there's another trend and this one puzzles me a great deal. since 1992 every your gallup has asked people about whether upper income people and severely income people and lower income people pay too much too little or the right amount of federal taxes. the proportions staving upper-income people pay too little is still a majority, 61%. but that is down significantly from 77% in 1982 and it's been moving steadily down. we don't have the new 2014 response on that question yet. the portion saying that lower income people pay too little is still very small and it has risen from 2% in 1992 to 20% today. sadly as i mentioned there are

only one poster that has a solid trend on this kind of question. policymakers who want to move taxi from ahead need to be aware of what public opinion is why they don't think it should be determined in any way of making tax policy. again the general trend is about to the kind of work chris is doing at syracuse are i think not very useful to those who are thinking about tax reform overall. thank you. >> chris is one of the few political scientists in the country was actually digging real details into people's attitudes towards tax preferences as well as spending. so if we can start off with him giving us a little bit of a rundown on what he found in his surveys. >> thank you. what i read in media accounts tax policy, i read words that say untouchable, wildly popular. there's one quote even that tax breaks are something that

citizens consider they came from the bill of rights or moses. and given my own research i find these portrayals of tax breaks to become founding. that in the research i conducted, along with others we found that the popular be of tax breaks is wide, but not very deep. and a lot of the public opinion on tax breaks is conditional. conditional on information that citizens have, conditional on their partisanship, and conditional on their income level. said the public is not uniform in their reaction to proposals for tax breaks. and any pathway to tax reforms that i've read in include the elimination, reduction, capping of tax expenditures. so the public's attitudes and policymakers perception of the public's attitude on tax break is important.

so there's been recent evidence from speeches given by president obama and others such as john boehner and even paul ryan talking about tax breaks in the way that tries to give information to citizens that might downgrade public support. so, for example, president obama has given a number of economic speeches and has even talked about tax breaks in his state of the union addresses. and there are portions of his speeches in which he says you know, although i support the goal of charitable contributions and homeownership, people need to understand that the tax breaks for these kids tens of thousands of benefits to wealthier households and gives almost nothing to the average family. so that are attempt by members of the congress and the president to inform the president about the distributive effects of tax rates as a way to maybe diminish support.

in a recent study that i conducted with chris alys cohen we conducted a survey government that tried to see if respondents were given information about the district benefits of tax break did, in fact, soften their support? and also we wanted to just determine whether tax breaks were as wildly popular our rights going to citizens by moses as policymakers believed. and in this simple extreme of what we did is we took a sample and randomly assigned to for different groups and present information on social programs. in the first two groups we used identical language, but we framed one as a tax break and then the other as a direct debit program. and in the parties then we found that tax breaks were popular across groups, but they were

more popular as you might expect with conservatives and republicans in our survey. but what was interesting was in the next set of groups we gay people additional information about the distributive effects of tax breaks. we had in our survey questions about the home mortgage interest deduction and retirement program. we found that they giving people just a little bit of information and information that wasn't heavy-handed where we said with these programs people with larger homes will get more benefits and the program for retirement, people who pay more into their retirement programs will get back more. even including language as relatively subtle as that we found that it downgraded peoples support for tax breaks, that they showed lower support for those when they were informed about the distributive benefits. but there's a catch. and the catch was that when you

looked at respondents either ideology and partisanship, the people identified as independent and democrat downgraded their support for these programs to the people identified as conservatives and republicans did not. so the results, this additional information on the distributive benefits matters to people who are independent and democrat and either doesn't matter as much for income inequality or actually wanting people with higher income and to receive more benefits out of self interest, for people are self-identified as conservatives and republicans. so there is we think support for tax breaks giving information

to voters could have an effect but, unfortunately, in this partisan employment effect is not going to be uniform. in giving people information will matter for some citizens and not for others. >> bill galston will talk to a little bit about tax reform. the 86 tax reform act as well but from a slightly different perspective. >> well, thanks for inviting me to be on this panel. in the introduction about chairman ron wyden's forthcoming move on tax extenders i've to say i was reminded of saint augustine famously in his confession, make me chase the lord, but not yet.

[laughter] everybody knows the obstacle to tax reform, you know the benefits are diffuse the losses are concentrated, the losers tend to be powerful and extremely well organized. and on the level of public opinion, the capacity of the system, the complexity of the relationship between policy inputs and policy outputs leads to the kind of fears karlyn was talking about the minute, i don't know how this works but the odds are i'm going to lose if the system changes. i don't like the way it is now i will be even worse off if it changes. on the other hand, history does record that these obstacles, which are very powerful, particularly in combination with the default setting of the american constitution system which is the status quo still from time to time most recently in 1986 these obstacles have been over and comprehensive tax reform has come to pass. my view is that history never

repeats itself but occasionally it does rhyme. so i think it is useful to take the 86 and successful 86 reform as a kind of analytical baseline. i just want to ask very quickly what were the enabling conditions that made that reform possible? not inevitable but possible. karlyn is already refuting details about the state of public opinion and i would just venture a summary judgment which i think is consistent with the facts you put on the table compared to now, look opinion offered a more permissive environment for tax reform than it does today. it wasn't way up at the top of the public's radar screen but on the other hand, their sentiments about government in june, about taxes in particular did generate a permissive

environment. i remember very clearly when house ways and means committee chair dan rostenkowski sent out his famous request, if you want tax reform. he got an avalanche of responses. i doubt very much we will see a similar plea today would move the public needle at all. enabling indicia number two, there was a rough and ready bipartisan consensus at least at the elite level. there are plenty of people in this room who remember the camp kasten proposal, and along with the perhaps better known bradley gephardt proposal, in late 1984 the congressional budget office did a famous side-by-side of those two proposals and found that it actually looked quite similar. the word for sympathy looked quite some tricky to take a look at that side-by-side and see how

a deal could emerge. there was also agreement on a fundamental goal or parameter. democrats and republicans, not all of them but most of them agreed on the grammar of revenue neutrality. and that was very important. and i can tell you having spent some time on the hill recently, no such agreement exists today. another key factor come the alignment of key institutional actors in the congress and in the administration. the house and senate leadership were on board to the extent at least they weren't telling key committee chairs to keep their mouths shut, to

cease-and-desist. of course, there was a very high level of interest under two treasury secretaries, don regan and jim baker. there was also a pageant

and the very first major policy address that reagan made after he was reelected was a call for tax, property tax reform in 1984. and, of course his treasury did deliver a concrete proposal and then another concrete proposal but they were in the game averaging a baseline creating a political space with series conversations about tax reform. if i had more time i would go through the list and show how none of these enabling conditions is present today.

you know perhaps in the q&a we can go into greater detail, but suffice it to say that john boehner's famous three words come in fact one word repeated three times response to dave camp's tax proposal namely blah, blah, blah, spoke volumes about where the speakers had was on tax reform at least prior to the november election but we could also talk about other institutional variables, and regrettably the absence of firm and specific presidential leadership in this area. could this change? or is this going to be another windmill. i think window is better than holy grail. you know, as all of us know ron wyden can be a persistent and effective public advocate when

it gets issues between his teeth because a number of records of tax refund with the midterms behind him speaker boehner may decide that it's time to legislate, and, of course, the president may be reluctant to end his second to leave office with no significant economic policy accomplishment in his second term. so one could imagine that things would look better in 2015 than they do now. ..