defines these close family relationships, and children and has been advised which are one secrets are. the older brother could be charged with misappropriating information from the younger one. here we are concerned with the insider's personal benefit. >> the defendant here is not the insider. we've been talking about the two brothers. how far down the line do you go because salman is a relative by marriage, that he is not -- he gets the money -- he gets the tip from the first tip. how long does it continue? ..

ththat involves a personal culpability that takes care of i think the concern that criminal liability will expand forever. it won't. >> look on the other side if you think about the tipper. you've used a couple times the phrase knowledge or anticipation that they would be trade. is that something more than he thinks there could be.

is it a strong as that speak was let me give you this example because that goes to that. the person with inside information has had a few drinks at the country club and is talking to some friends and discloses the insider information to the friends. one of the friends trades on the information. what would you have to prove after the mental state of the kipper and the tp? which have to prove that any one of the friends we trade on the inside or that he was reckless as to whether the friend would trade? a new this was a person who was in the stock market and as to the tippee? that the keeping of the insider new is going to trade on the information? >> as to the temper, we submit that an element is the insider

anticipated that the person to whom he gave the information we trade. >> is anticipated the same as he knew he would speak with yes. we are talking about -- >> but it's not enough. i think he might or you know, i'm sort of adding he would but i don't really know. >> in a criminal case we need to show a breach of fiduciary duty. we have to show an intent to defraud, and show willfulness in order to obtain a criminal conviction. >> why do you want to put knowledge that it would be used for trading as part of the breach of the judiciary committee? if you do not then you have to prove that the tippee new that the tipper thought it would be traded speak with yes. i don't think that's a very difficult burden. it's obvious why it is being done. >> why can't you put in the

intent to defraud speak with a ghost to intent to defraud. >> why make a part of the breach? >> dirks did. dirks adopted that katie roberts formulation. >> it doesn't, it has a sensor which is exactly what is hanging up and accept what about you going to answer before you got cut off. the sentence is, the elements exist also when an insider makes the gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend. >> yes. >> that doesn't sound as if the writer of those words had in mind any person in the world. in each instance you have to know that that person would, in fact, use the information to

trade, but it doesn't take any person in the world. it's as a trading relative or friend. >> yes, but this isn't a portion of the opinion. >> i should read the whole opinion. >> no. it's a portion of the being of which justice powell is giving examples of the concrete circumstances that will allow the government to establish the purpose of the disclosure was for personal benefit as opposed to what the fcc was concerned about, that people would choose ostensible business justifications to explain what information was being given out and fcc was concerned this is going to create a quagmire of subjective analysis. the court response was to give examples in which the objective criteria would help establish. the confirmation of this is about at the end of the opinion that portion that justice kagan met earlier today, page 667,

where the court analyzes why secret any other insiders at equity funding have not occasioned liability for dirks. >> now, i want you to tell me what i can read to get the explanation of dirks that the majority of lower courts have followed. it seems to me the second circuit has not read as you're reading it. >> correct. >> for after all, they came to the opposite conclusion. and are their circuits they are just as you had and said, you walk down the street. you find anybody, you don't even know him, but he does keep saying trading, trading, trading. you tell him and, therefore, you know that he will likely trade. in other words, an anonymous person very far, just what you're arguing, what are the circuits that follow the? >> this case does not follow that. this involves the classic

prototypical situation that arises in the real world and gets prosecuted. there are few cases that involve this hypothetical but somebody is shooting inside information -- >> i'm not worried so much about this case. i am worried about line drawing and you want to draw a line so that friend, relative, doesn't matter, and before i write those words, i'd like to know what circuit courts have followed that approach? >> i think there are not a lot of cases that don't involve friends or family members. the case that most closely tracks the analysis that i think best explains of dirks is the seventh circuit decision in sec versus mayo. excited in our briefing it does involve two people who were close friends because ordinarily those of common circumstance which people decide to risk criminal liability to give out inside information so someone else can profit. the court makes the statement in

it that there was no corporate reason, no legitimate reason why one friend whose inside of the corporation is giving information to third person. didn't have to give information at all so why did he do it except for the court concluded fix within the dirks language? >> what if you have a situation where close friends or whatever anyone says i want to tell you what i've been working on, it's pretty interesting. but tells him, whatever you do don't go buy stock. you can't do that. that's against the law. so you're not going to prosecute a situation when they could make $100,000? >> the tipper in that situation is disclosing information in the context where he is made an express statement, and i'm assuming understandings between the two that the information would not be used. the tipper is not liable for insider trading. the tippee losing trades may be charged under the

misappropriation theory for having taken information from a relationship of confidence or an express statement and an agreement not to use the information, and the fraud is between the tipper and the tippee, not between as here the tipper of the people to whom the tipper owns a producer duty. this is explained in sec's rule which helps define the kinds relationships that support the misappropriation theory of liability. i think what this illustrates is we are not urging a theory in which tippers are% liable every time in that information is disclosed. this isn't a revival of the information theory that was rejected in dirks. what makes that most clear is that there are situations in which inside information can be legitimately revealed, even when it is now and it will location trading, and it doesn't violate the insiders fiduciary breach. >> i think you're taking this layout of existing law.

are you going to suggest that key piece are not routinely -- teepees are not routinely prosecuted when tippers don't know that they're going to trade? i think that are most often it's because you claim that they should not it was confidential. >> in a criminal case we are not claiming that. >> there's a legion of cases i read for this preparing for this argument where the government has said -- >> i don't think that there are because i don't think that's what, we are not making a submission in this case. i think the cases we are trying to end the jury instructions that we are obtaining contemplate that the disclosures to a trading relative or friend. that is the heart of the gift theory. i don't think i'm departing from the way that -- >> so you're going to let go of the guy that justice alito, a guy on the street look who looks dejected as though my friend or

a close relative, but i give gie them a tip and say go trade on this, it will make you a lot of money. that tipper would not be liable? >> he would for the very reason that you yourself articulated. in that situation there's a gift of information to some of what the intent that the person trade. >> so it's irrelevant whether it's a friend or family member? >> my submission is best way to understand irks is that a ghost breach of fiduciary duty which will not be limited to take adequate like that. i don't think justice powell in articulating this species of personal benefit was attempting to rely on. i was trying to explain this before. at the end of the opinion where the court resides in says that secrist is not liable because he did make any financial advantage, it goes on to say nor did he make a gift available information to dirks. the court didn't say well, dirks wasn't a relative. therefore, he's out of the

picture. the court applied the analysis in that situation precisely because the line the court was trying to draw was between the appropriate use of corporate information and the inappropriate use. >> i get your theory and why does make any particular difference. in that same paragraph where the court says relatives or friends, the court, just a sentence before, just talks about an attention to benefit a recipient without any sense of who the recipient has to be. on the other hand, almost all of these cases are relatives and friends. things might look different if we had a case that was not a relative or friend. and one that separates out thate strange, unusual, hardly ever prosecuted situation and say we're not dealing with that here? we have nothing to say about it. >> i'm fine with that.

we are not seeking the court to go beyond dirks. these are the cases that actually do a rise in the real world. there is one case that involves a guy who was an insider who tipped his barber and additional court said the barber and insider were not close enough, so that it didn't count under dirks. i think that's wrong. i don't think that is a good principle for it. >> is there a difference between friend and acquaintance? tell me. >> this is precisely the reason why i think it doesn't make sense from a pointer to a principle or application to draw a distinction that's based on words in the opinion that the court didn't actually articulate when it applied them to the very situation before it. there is more nebulous features about relationships, once you can find it too undefined terms as friends or relatives. these guys clearly doesn't implicate that at all. it's in the heartland of insider trading prohibition. it's one brother to another brother.

there's a very close relationship. record is replete with all of that. the court doesn't have to do with for the outlier cases and it doesn't have to reconceptualize dirks or even attribute in the way i've synthesized its analysis, in order to conclude that a strict pecuniary gain limitations is inimical to the purposes of the sake of these laws and ecosystem with the doctrine that the court has enough and apply for 33 years. with the exception of the newman case, lower courts haven't had any difficulty applying it. there's been a couple of outlier cases involving barbers but almost all of these cases involve situations in which there's a pretty good explanation for why the tipper would be provide information for the tippee in breach of a producer duty. in cases where there is a legitimate corporate person alleged, which conceivably may have been the concern of the newman court, dirks already addressed that.

it said when there's an ostensibly legitimate business justification proffered for the disclosure, people are not going to wander around in the dark trying to sort out a subjective intent. there will be a objective factors to which the relevant purpose, the personal purpose, can be inferred. that's the portion in which the court goes through examples of what the objective circumstances will be. it includes the intention to benefit a particular person, and they very specifically includes the gift situation. if the court feels more comfortable given the facts of this case of reaffirming dirks and saying that was the law in 1983, it remains the law today, that is completely fine with the government. there are cases in which it would be clear and more beneficial to adopt a rule that if there is a corporate purpose, a disclosure to anyone as a breach of a fiduciary duty. but if the court is more at home with the language that was used in dirks and wants to reaffirm it, it should do so.

clearly congress is aware of this line of cases. it is never disturbed it. it is actual incorporated the word insider-trading. it's not like this is a stranger to congress. when it applied the prohibitions to security swap agreements, this is a well-known area of the law. the submission of the government is that the court should reaffirm it. >> so i tip like the one where concerned with, the requirement is that that tippee know that the information came from an insider speak with yes. he has to know that it came from an insider in breach of a fiduciary duty and for personal benefit, as i've been articulating it. conscious avoidance can be used to establish that knowledge. the person doesn't have been all of the details of exactly what the breach of fiduciary duty was your their has to be enough information so that the government can prove be on original doubt that the tippee didn't know. spent is recklessness used?

>> recklessness is not enough for a criminal case, now. we need to show knowledge. we can't and we do rely on conscious avoidance. to the extent that the tipper understood that the tippee which made, that's a requirement of knowledge. it's not a requirement that the person in 10 that the tippee treated it's an understanding and knowledge that it would happen. the tps to the knowledge of breach. oftentimes this can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. this is a perfect example of the. the petition in this case was the brother-in-law of the insider. he knew that the information was coming out of the city grew. he knew that there was no legitimate reason for it to be disclosed from his brother. in submission the court believes that the government believes that the court should affirm the judgment in this case. thank you. >> b. shapiro, you have four minutes remaining. >> the guy in the passion of the government's argument illustrates precisely the

dangers without having a statutory definition. the government now says for the first time in its merits brief and in his argument to this court that some of the such and dirks embodies a duty of loyalty standard that is nowhere in either the statute or the dirks case. indeed, they never argued this to the district court, not to the ninth circuit, not in the brief in opposition were in the newman case. that facts of newman our inconsistent with the standard the government purports to propose because the government claims that it will insist that the insight as to have an intention that the tippee trade. if you look at the facts of newman you will see that the undisputed evidence was that with effect to the nba company tipper, there was no evidence that that insider new sequential church was going to trade on the information. likewise, it wasn't any evidence

that the other insider was aware that anyone would trade. example of the other insider illustrates sometimes it's also the weather some has a corporate purpose or a personal purpose because sometimes purposes are mixed. in that instance the insider was speaking with an analyst who was checking his financial model, and as the evidence shows, this happens every day in the markets, the government argued who is also seeking career advice from the other individual who was a college friend, but there's no indication that he knew he's going to trade. furthermore, the government argument is completely inconsistent with the dirks. the facts of dirks, undisputed on the record, i that the insider secrets disclosed the information. he was seeking to expose a fraud but he intended that dirks which are the information with its

institutional clients so they could trade and drive the price of the stock down. the court expressly rejected in footnote 27 attest almost identical to what the government is proposing. the sec appears to contend that an insider invariably violates the fiduciary duty of the corporation shareholders by transmitting nonpublic corporate information to an outsider when he has reason to believe that the outsider may use it to the disadvantage of the shareholde shareholders. the court rejected that argument. later in the footnote the court talks about the distance argument. by perceiving a breach of fiduciary duty whenever inside information is intentionally disclosed to securities traders, the dissenting opinions would achieve the same result the court rejected in chiarella and rejected again. that is, effectively a parody of information role. the government test isn't consistent with the dirks. furthermore, one of the points

in this section of the opinion that discusses the test is the concern that courts shouldn't have to read the parties mind as to this element of the offense as opposed to see enter, to the extent the government claims that there is an intention of the element to the breach of duty that would violate that suggestion insurance case as well. finally, with respect to the whole remote tippee comment petition in this case, in this case petitioner had no idea why he was disclosing information to his brother. the only thing the record shows is that there was testimony that michael told in the information came from the brother. there was no evidence yet any idea why, but justice sotomayor pointed out, there were three different reasons at this point

that information was disclosed. disclosed. one was sill so we could educate himself about the science of the work that he was doing. one was so they could discuss potential drugs for the ending father. then there was the third phase. there was no evidence whatsoever that petitioner had any idea why the information was being disclosed. and, finally, with regard to the point about the congressional statute, the fact of the matter is, if congress could be said to have -- >> thing is your sentence -- finished your sentence. >> if congress could be said to have ratified anything, although to be said to have ratified is that there is an insider training been. there's no indication congress ever ratified the dirks get the language. thank you. >> thank you, counsel to the case is submitted. >> the supreme court recently heard oral argument in the case manuel versus city of joliet, illinois, about the right to sue police officers for an alleged false arrest and detention under

which referred to as malicious prosecution. here are the argument -- to the argument on c-span. you can follow the court's upcoming schedule of oral arguments at c-span.org select supreme court to the right and top of the page and you'll see the court's schedule for this term was a list of all current justices in the supreme court video on demand watch oral arguments that we've aired in recent c-span appearances by supreme court justices at c-span.org your. >> every weekend booktv brings you 40 hours of nonfiction books and authors. is what's coming up this weekend.

less than half and sometimes even maybe only 30% of the total cost of attending college. the real hangups students have on the need to pay their rent, to pay their utilities, to buy food. they can't do those things in the same way when they're in college because they need to spend time in the classroom. it's those kinds of things we saw tripped them up over time. it wasn't a tuition and fees. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> this week in c-span cities to

work well with our comcast cable partners will explore the literary life and history of your you illinois. on booktv on c-span2 jackie hogan author of the book lincoln and incorporated selling the 16th president in contemporary america talks about modern marketing and selling of abraham lincoln. >> he's portrayed in your you i think as a hero, someone who stood his ground against the spread of slavery. >> been brought his notorious, the sheltered from southern illinois legendary gangsters exports organized crime in illinois to 1920-1940s through the legendary gangster family. >> it led to an all-out war in southern illinois between the client and the bootleggers. the bootleggers, it was like a bootlegging army. >> on american history tv on

c-span3 peoria historian talks about the whiskey capital of the world. >> it was primarily because of the quality of the water. water is filtered through limestone and i was perfect for brewing and distilling. >> and visit the usda's center where in 1941 scientists discovered how to mass produce penicillin, credited for saving thousands of valid lives are in world war ii. the c-span cities to her saturday at 6 p.m. eastern on c-span2's booktv, and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv on c-span3. working with her cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> our campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span2. next up a series of discussions about 2016, presidential

campaign rhetoric and a range of policy proposals from hillary clinton, donald trump including talks about the economy, taxes, social security, spending and defense. mark halperin will be conducting the interviews and they should get underway shortly. we will becoming a couple of debates today. state race debates on c-span, 12:15 p.m. eastern the pennsylvania eighth congressional district debate, and the north dilemma senate debate coming up on c-span this evening at 7:00 eastern. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> -- "bloomberg news." >> so welcome everybody. it's great to see everybody again at a amazing at the table breakfast politics. sponsored of course by the pete peterson foundation. we're thrilled to have your and people line streaming -- live stream. we are thrilled at the top of economy. over the past week we really want to focus on issues that matter. i am looking for doing a really substantive talk today about

both candidates and economic policies and not so many other things people in my profession at the been spinning to talk to us we. mark halperin has great guests lined up and will be fantastic. to take everything off a good welcome to the stage -- executive vice president of the peter peterson foundation. thank you, guys so much. have a great event. [applause] >> thank you so much for coming this morning. my name is loretto, and i'm executive vice president of the peter g. peterson foundation. we are a nonpartisan organization, and our mission is to educate and engage americans in the nation's long-term fiscal challenges. and find solutions that help us achieve and maintain a prosperous and growing economy. we believe that long-term debt is a critical issue for the

economy. whatever the issue is that you care about, education, the environment, national security, our ability as a nation to deal with it is grounded in addressing our long-term challenges. we also believe that debate, discussion and dialogue are critical in this presidential election. and that's why we are very proud and enthusiastic sponsor of events like this with bloomberg politics. we are certainly looking forward to this morning's discussion with a range of policy experts. and with everything going on in the news, i think there's a lot more to talk about as well. i'm sure that mark will take us through all of that. thank you for joining us, and it is great to be here for this discussion. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage mark halperin, managing editor bloomberg politics, host of with all due respect and bloomberg television. >> so we're going to the big policy discussion today but that's not all we're going to talk about. the question of whose policies are going to be thought about is treated as a, junior is heading in the ballot i was in lakeland, florida, yesterday at 6:00 covering donald trump and between the time i left that event to come here and now a lot has happened that's going to impact this race in ways that are not currently knowable. so ken goldstein, my colleague comes going to come up and will talk a little about what is happening in the news. and we will gavel in some of that with everybody else but we will have most a good discussion of the themes and issues the peterson foundation does so well

on, and they are obviously one of the few groups i was a sadly but thank god for them, that is always going to inject substantive discussions into what is happening. i'm relatively optimistic no matter who wins the white house over who controls congress that we'll see a flurry of activity on fiscal issues and economic issues in the beginning of a new administration, the new congress. because there's actually a fair amount of agreement about what the white issues. we will talk about that at first we will talk about what's going on in the news. i want to a few to get volunteers to just watched donald trump's twitter account during the event and tell me anything that goes on ass because anytime -- anything that goes on. [laughter] ken goldstein, professor politics universes have for cisco, a contribute to bloomberg politics and he is across as virginia's about polling and

advertising and now hopefully an expert on allegations of sexual harassment because that's what we're going to start. thank you. >> thank you very much for having me. >> friday morning donald trump was behind. he had a plausible path to about 265 electoral votes. no obvious path to to waited 70 but once he gets to 265 you were within disappeared since then we've had the access hollywood audio/we did, we had the debate, and now we've had this latest round of allegations. so if you're the trump campaign, just talk about, there's very limited public polling. bluebird has a poll in pennsylvania that shows trump doing very badly but he's been doing very badly in pennsylvania and the electoral college violations do not hinge on pennsylvania. if you are the trump campaign is it possible to get good data to forget where you stand, or are things moving too fast?

>> there's also the question about whether they've invested in the infrastructure to gather that data. but when you were just saying you want a couple people here to keep an eye on donald trump's twitter account while we're talking, mark was not joking. it is committed. i was actually on friday, seems like a long time ago, i was on the set about to talk to mark when the trump news broke. people were screaming in my ear. the blue angels were out there and they're like zooming by and car alarms were going off. unlike wow, what i'm going to talk about? talk about the pennsylvania ad by. you've heard michelle obama said at the convention and in hillary clinton said when they go low, we go high. so when things get crazy, i get boring. >> is a little boring. >> let me be boring.

at the end of the day, elections are about what the shape of the electorate looks like and how those different segments performed. it's embarrassing as a political scientist, we studied this and spent all this money and we determined democrats vote for democrats and republicans vote for republicans. that's the big finding if you remember that from your intro to american politics course. when you have two candidates who are so deeply unpopular, we can talk about how unpopular donald trump is and he seems to be coming less popular. hillary clinton is also the second most unpopular person to ever run for president of the united states, to be a major party nominee. this raised default to a generic democrat versus a generic republican. when you have that, democrats have about, depends on what turnout is, but between four and seven percentage point advantage in the shape of electric.

donald trump needs to maximize republican loyalty and needs to win independence by significantly more than mitt romney won independence. do we think things happen in the last couple days that are going to maximize republican turnout, minimize democratic turnout, make republicans more loyal and get swing voters to swing to trump in a way greater than romney got them? i think the answer to that is unlikely. i think we can see some movements over the last whatever it is, 28, 27 days here that make this a three-point race or four-point race, getting into field-goal range. but currently we are not there. even when trump was having a little bit of movement before

the first debate and seemed to have stabilized things before friday in the second debate, he was still not ahead. instead it would've been an inside straight to get to 270 electoral college votes. >> so thinking a fight with the speaker of the house as a member of his own adopted party -- picking -- is it possible that could help him with at least a piece of appealing to independents? >> it depends on which he and the independents also the independence is this big squishy concept. many of you here involved in politics know that the true number of independent is probably like 10% of the most, not the 30 or 35% that you see in most polls. maybe it swings some of those

disaffected republicans who are key party folks who don't want to say they are republicans, so they fall into the independent category. but at the end of the day that's not the path to 270, not the path to 50 plus one. >> is the strategy begun at the debate and according to our colleague josh green, going to continue today of highlighting bill clinton's personal life something that can allow them to consolidate support amongst republicans? >> i think that's a possibility. we've not had a lot of public polling. if i can get to your phone i can see the text you have about the internal polling. so you're going to move out a way. we don't have a lot of public polling. trump is still getting to support the you see these

headlines to trump's the massive republicans for. is but it is not in the high '70s rather than the high 80s, and that matters. so i think the continued focus on the clintons navy gets him that republican support back up to the high 80s, i.t. needs that in the '90s. he needed to turn out to be high, and he needs to be winning independents. there's been a lot of this analysis. everyone became an expert on white people in the last month, especially like white people in pennsylvania. no one here has ever been to western pennsylvania and russia were driving through the everyone in washington, d.c. became an expert on white people in western pennsylvania. there's not enough of them, is the truth. when you talk about missing white voters in places like ohio, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, there are missing white voters. the problem is for republicans to a mostly dead. they are missing white voters from 10, 20 years ago. there are not enough it didn't

turn out he will turnout in the presidential election. >> let's talk about the mystery of the republican party's place with the electorate. a lot of hand wringing if they lose the presidential. and yet lots of states have republican governors including a lot of blue states. they control both chambers, lots of state legislatures to let's take wisconsin to a state you know well. how can a state that elects scott walker discover three times basically a very conservative guy with policies that are opposed by labor unions and lots of groups on the left, how could that state be an impossibility for the republican party? >> that's a really interesting question. not that your other ones were not as well. >> up my game. >> even in high turnout state like wisconsin, you have a million more people voting in a presidential election and a midterm election year.

i think it's understudied by nerds like me is the difference between the composition of a midterm electorate at a presidential election electric. remember my big -- democrats have a six, seven, 8% advantage in presidential election year nationally and in a state like wisconsin republicans, even republicans have a percentage point advantage. so the republicans have lots to figure out at the presidential level, but at the midterm level democrats need to figure out how to get those drop off voters. young people, nonwhite out to the polls or you will continue to see republican state legislatures, republican governors which also have an impact on the u.s. congress because they are the ones drawn the lines for the congressional elections as well. >> tell me what you think donald trump's floor and ceiling and the popular vote are right now.

>> i think -- the four-way popular vote. i think the floor is 37, 38, and the ceiling is 42, 43. so a very narrow range. >> forty-three he can't win basically what you're telling us. >> even if you have, i think hillary wins by five. >> if he gets down to 37, does that mean the republicans lose the house or not necessarily? >> when things go crazy, people talk about there's got to be a wave or not a wave and to talk about the way to early. when these things happen, mark and i first met at abc many, many years ago. i think we met in a midterm election. wing crazy things are happening is the last week and when you're like that race is competitive. so i think it would be difficult for the democrats to take

control of congress, that if you see a complete explosion, we've already had an explosion, a complete explosion of the trump campaign, it may bring some seats into play. what's been interesting is the republicans are holding on in some of the senate seat. i would not have but i would have a conversation with you today where, i can imagine ron johnson wins in wisconsin but charles franklin has a dust bowl, within two. >> are both shows donald trump losing badly, double digits in pennsylvania, and yet pat toomey is within the margin of error as well. spirit and has taken ohio out. >> explain how that could be. how could rob portman the other 15. >> at the time where there's not ticket splitting, there's ticket splitting. >> that -- >> and then democrats vote for

democrats and republicans vote for republicans. listen, if i was the republican come what you will see in ron johnson is his basic point to start airing ads and people start airing ads on his behalf saying going to lose the presidency. if you want to have a check on hillary clinton, you need to vote for me. either way because i cannot talk about ads. attention to where the ads are going in senate races. i had written off wisconsin for ron johnson. club for growth with -- is within a with $1 million. it must've had a poll that showed that was consistent with what charles was saying. >> we scratched the surface but that's all we're going to get to do today. thanks. ken goldstein. [applause] >> we are going to move on. we will talk about some policy and economics, and our first person doing up there is peter navarro, a business professor at the university of california-irvine and economic adviser to donald jobs presidential campaign.

how are you? thanks for coming. i'm going to start off by asking you about the news but on this level. you are a guy who hears about ideas. you support a candidate do you think will be the best president. when you see stories like we've seen lastly, allocations, how does that make you feel? >> i love the headline of the post today. did you read that yet speak with which story? >> you didn't read the post this morning e-mail, wikileaks. i don't how you can start a conversation about what's going on without the bigger story of the wikileaks there will going to see a constant stream of e-mails that are going to basically undressed hillary clinton before the voters of this country and exposure as a corrupt and incompetent official who is micromanaged by people inside her organization. and wikileaks are beautiful. let me give an example. one of my things as an economist is trade.

the 2012 south korean deal, this is all hillary's baby. she went around asia as secretary of state promising the american people that that it was going to create 70,000 new jobs. the peterson institute by the way was part of the think tank apparatus that gave her the analytics for that. what do we know now? we know that deal cost 95,000 jobs, mostly in the swing states of ohio, indiana, illinois. our exports did not move a bit. that needle did not move, but our imports would off the chart. we doubled our deal with south korea and wikileaks, this is beautiful. it's like we've got john podesta's e-mails, and her foreign policy advisers warning her not to touch the south korean deal in public because it

would quote drive them nuts, right? this is what's going on at least from the trump campaign looking at that. it's corruption versus allegations, and you've got to talk about it. the patient is to do, i love being here really because the peterson institute has been the leading think tank on globalization and they have been wrong every time, before they would even the peterson institute. there because they 1983 told us what, nafta was going to give us 200,000 new jobs. what did we do? we lost 850,000 jobs at our deficit with mexico went from zero to $60 billion a year. the peterson institute fellows that china going into the wto was going to be a good deal for america. we have lost over 50,000 factories, over 5 million manufacturing jobs. the last 15 years our average median household income has

increased by what? zero. and our growth rate has gone from 3.5% which we entertained from 1947-2001, the 1.9 present to you this one percentage point of gdp growth. that's 1.2 million jobs you don't create. you do that for 15 years, you're in trouble. now the peterson institute is telling us that trans-pacific partnership is going to provide us the same kind of goodies for the american people. we are not buying this at the trump campaign. the american people are not buying it and the swing states are not buying it. and e-mails are really revealing about this. this will thing about how hillary clinton speaks, okay, let's suppose you folks are donors come your corporate donors and on hillary clinton. i'm telling you i am for the tpp and i'm telling you i'm for keeping the regulations so they will not hurt you do and then i go out on the stump and until

people just the opposite. that public force versus the private voice. it's in the wikileaks. i was in i was debating austan goolsbee in springfield ohio two weeks ago. he was obama's advisor and he will be hillary's advisor. in 2008 when obama was running against hillary, he went to cleveland and gave a speech promising that he would repeal nafta. he promised he would repeal nafta. does that sound familiar? that's what donald trump says he's going to do, right? at the same time austan goolsbee was sneaking into the canadian consulate in chicago telling the canadians that don't worry, we got you covered. that's just maneuvering. >> i'm not being facetious, but i want to bring about darfur is grave and move on to some of things he just appeared someone is dedicating a lot of time helping donald trump get elected how did you waking up to reduce

other headlines about allegations? >> if you want to talk to you want to talk about those things? we've got to bill clinton who abuse in terms, who raped women, and the woman basically who enable that and punished women. if women in america want to vote for the clinton team, that's what you've got the what do we have with donald trump? we've got words and we've got false allegations. do we want to go down this road at greenberg -- bloomberg? i would rather talk about the economy. >> one question and had responded you say they are false allegations. speak i'm here to talk of economics. look, we want to have an election about the issues. let's talk about the economy. let's talk about foreign policy. immigration, health care. but every time i come to places like this are good on the radio or tv it's like they're asking the questions that are outside my later i'm going to stay in my lane and tell you we go over all

those quotes. >> donald trump is talked about trade quite a bit but he said he is for trade agreements. tell me if he got to penetrate agreements he would want, passed and signed, explain how quickly and in what ways that would affect economic growth in this country, how that would work speed our mission is to get back to 3.5% growth rate we did that for five f. decades. >> how much of that would be simply through trade? >> probably about half, half of that. a fairly detailed conservatively estimate report, we went through the benefits of to growth from tax cuts, reduced regulation, modest, and trade. >> and have would be trade speak with the same roughly, yeah.

but here's the problem. when you ask me that question what we all do in this world, particularly the analytics is we sidle stuff. it's like let's look at tax policy, let's look at energy policy. think about the synergies and interaction. on tax policy he cuts the corporate tax from 35%, the highest in the world among developing countries, down 15%. what does that due to the trade equation? what it does is it changes the incentives to afford and gm to stay in michigan rather than go to michigan under in mexico. it increases nonresidential fixed investment which moves the growth rate but if you also have your production facility in michigan, you also are selling into the american market which helps your trade deficit rather than going to mexico and some back into the american market. when you say which of these, which parts of growth, it's synergy speak what country and time period pursue the tiger

trade policy that led to faster growth speak with let me show you how this would work. let's do the numbers but if you think about who we have trade deficits with its a relatively small band of country. germany, japan, south korea, china, mexico. now, the approach, the trump strategy takes it to recognize first of all the problems we have, the reason that deficits with each of those countries is different. china is -- i'm going to answer question or china's problem, mexico is a trade deal problem, rules of origin. what we want to do surgically is negotiate bilaterally with each of these countries and say look, for example, germany, japan, south korea, by a little bit more of our petroleum products. that will help us. use our bargaining power tickets can like when you're a big business and you've got small vendors, you negotiate better.

that's the whole thing. we are cutting back trade deals and the think tanks telling us they a good deals and then we wind up getting what we got -- >> pursued a strategy and -- >> they all do. if you look, look, europe has got trouble. they grow slower than we do so you can't talk in absolute terms but you got to talk in relative terms. in europe it's overregulated. they have nowhere near the energy resources we have. they have what we call in economics and/or potential output in a lower structural growth rate. the problem is we are underperforming. every country out there besides us which is taking advantage of our markets is engaging in a mercantilist state run kind of approach to reducing their trade deficit and selling products to cause. we are not doing that. we are just saying, and into our markets and it's okay. >> we have a president whose approval ratings are in the

50s, the mid '50s -- >> remarkable, isn't? with the worst economy since world war ii. >> he looked out the trump economic proposals to everything you're talking about on trade, energy, the affordable car -- affordable care act a bad idea to talk about how donald trump if elected would work with 40 plus democrats in the senate and public opinions to make those things are reality. >> i think he would be great at that. that's the art of the deal. let's think about what the obama and clinton administrations have offered us. really she makes no bones about this on the stump. she's going to raise taxes. no economic textbook tells you that could help us grow. she's going to continue with the increase in regulation that the obama administration has done, particularly on energy. nobody tells you that stimulative. they are responsible, obama led for the tpp just like clinton

did, democrat against labor for china into the world trade organization. i don't know what their game is. what i do know is it took us over 230 years to run up a debt of $10 trillion. it took barack obama eight years to double that. it's a misdiagnosis. it's the idea that whenever we have a problem we can solve this through keynesian stimulus. what do they do? they ran the fiscal seems to imply that the federal reserve balance sheet by printing a bunch of money and that is not working to the reason is they misdiagnosed the structural problem associate with sending our factories and investment offshore and running massive trade deficits that but arithmetic and definition drag us down. >> should the transit have a federal system, a policy in place that has universal health coverage? >> i don't think so. now. look, the trump plan, and that's my opinion.

trump, what donald trump is almost is to get rid of obamacare. obamacare, barack obama was a child when you get obamacare for this reason that there were two things. let's go back to that debate. they were two things he had to accomplish in that mission. coverage and cost containment. the hard-won was cost containment. the easy one was coverage. just wave a wand and say let it be done. he waved that want and select be done. he didn't do with cost containment and now the whole thing is imploding. the people were getting hurt worse by the thirtysomethings and the late twentysomethings who are caught in the advice. let's make no mistake about that. that was bad policy and bad politics. >> democracy does have universal coverage. what is the right goal regarding coverage for the federal government? >> not my lane. i can tell you this. obamacare is gone and we will start over because that's not working.

by the way, when canada, when canadians need good care, they come across the border, right? when they need good care can they come across the border. >> so if donald trump as the republican house and say he has a republican senate if elected, what the realistic deficit reduction goal over the first -- >> that's a great question. one of the problems that we have in the analytics of all this is that all these think tanks out there that are hostile to us, just look at the tax cuts. we have very positive offsets. if you got big deficits the way washington things, here i am, is if your a democrat its raise taxes, if the republican it's cut spending. what if you increase your growth rate by just one point or -- you soar. that's what we're going to do. >> let's talk macro numbers. he takes office if he wins in january 2017.

what you would we have 3.5% growth? >> cop a plea by the end of u2. we want to eliminate -- probably by the end of the second year. that's doable with good deals. day one, moratorium on all new regulations that don't threaten public health and safety are not congressionally mandated. and we have all agencies do a review and try to cut by 10%. we are not going to suppress a coal, oil and natural gas industry anymore. ..

>> book, we are going to have a plan that grows and be revenue neutral over 10 years as >> of donald trump is a two-term president. >> think about this. it will be on a much larger gdp. so the effective deficit goes down dramatically. >> we want to cry when i revenue nurture away in create 25 million jobs. but what's the alternative here ?-questionstion -mark hillary clinton has told you she will continue obama. make no mistake about this. everyone in this room, the best you will do with hillary clinton is 2%. and probably worse.

there's no way at all passed out with raising taxes, regulation, oil, natural gas and writing trade deals like south korea. >> the last time iran's surpluses in the 90s. is there anything bill clinton did regarding fiscal policy and economics you think it's worth copying to bring down the deficit? >> the clinton years were last in the most inventive explosion of technological innovation that we've ever seen since the invention of the steam engine. is your golden years and everybody remembers them fondly. if you got out of the stock market, you can did. that had little to do with anything the government did. >> there's a big debate on that and economics teacher. i go through this in my courses and there's a big debate about

whether herbert walker bush actually said at the clinton recovery by resisting the keynesian call to stimulus or not. you can probably give credit to both of those administrations for what happened. the real credit doesn't go to them. it goes to technology. make no mistake about what happened in those eight years. it was remarkable. >> we don't attribute to anything in terms of policy. the >> what i would attribute to bill clinton no-space. he made the worst decision of any american president in his tree on the economy when he pushed for china to get into the world trade organization. our world changed after that and you can look at the data appeared 2001 ,-com,-com ma 3.5% growth since china came in with 300 billion new workers over the 15 year period.

dumping, cheating, it's been difficult. whatever you want to attribute to bill clinton in the 90s, 10 times over. i think that the best president we've had in terms of economic growth is reckoned. if you look at what happened with reagan. the >> per reagan is interesting. reagan came into office and here's a horrible situation in the 70s for some of us in this rumor number. here's three through eight of the administration he was hitting on 4% growth. but again, our gdp was growing so relative to our gdp, you almost have to bring that factor into the consideration. i think what the american people

are concerned with now is growth and jobs in the fact that we can do it when hillary clinton can't provide any of the growth >> washington oriented groups for your plan not the way you do and they say in front to increase the deficit. what assumptions are they making that are different than yours? >> is the good, the bad and the ugly. we get hillary clinton in cleveland talking to a bunch of high schools to dance the same independent movies analytics basically scores the trump then it's going to create a recession in specifically named mark c&d. she told back to high school students and implied that he was a republican to give him credibility. fact checker.work out all over her because that is the repeated lie. a big donor to the democratic

party and to her. there's a credibility issue there. the tax policy center is coming out with this court today as aei and the tax foundation says their plan looks great. tax policy center's books back. ideology comes into play. what they don't do and direct answer to your question. first of all they don't dynamically score the plan. that's critical. we live in a dynamic world in its second and one of my missions has been over the past month is to get people to do the analytics and evaluate the whole plan. if you've got tax cuts taking revenues down, okay. but if you've also got energy regulatory and trade reforms taking revenues up, let's look at the whole picture. >> peter, thank you so much.

i would say slightly different perspective as an adviser to the clinton campaign and former chief economist of the vice president on budget and policy priorities. please come up and join us. thank you for coming. >> thanks for coming. i'm going to respond to what peter said. we will replace that. >> i was not a political statement and all. >> you are someone like this election to be about policy differences between the two candidates. the clinton campaign says you shouldn't talk about personal things. it should be about policy. they spent a fair amount of time would you say both campaigns are

guilty but not. >> both campaigns are actually talking more about policy in the last debate policies came up with the name i'd expect to but i do think that temperament are relevant and particularly issues that is germane in this campaign when trump has really elevated this issue that it's not so much what i would call the policy framework changes in equality, changes in globalization, changes in bargaining power and unions in all the policies they think about good labors anders. the middle-class income than wages. the mexican permit immigrants.

it is deeply divisive end of her from a discussion i am involved with for 20 plus years as a member of the obama economics team was trying to intervene in that space. so that is the part that i think is kind of damaging. >> one other question outside your lan. >> regardless of whether wikileaks obtained those evidence documented from the mouths of russia or not, is that proper for news organizations to report on them versus catastrophe desire john podesta's private e-mails we should report on them. >> that's a hard question. let me see. i think it's really important to confirm that what you are seeing is what you really -- but they are telling you they are seeing.

before people release that information, they need to make sure it is true. the fact is we are learning some important stuff that people didn't want to be publicized and i'm not sure that is obviously a bad thing. >> they've avoided saying the fair accurate documents. the clinton campaign hasn't confirmed the e-mail says britain. they shouldn't be reported on. >> i can't speak to the clayton campaign because i have a polyp that. they should be reported until they really know what we're looking at. i have a real problem with things that have come out and get everybody wound up and turn out to be false. it is not that hard to do that sort of thing these days that that is definitely rubs me the wrong way. >> you-all didn't notify me there is a donald trump to eat 35 seconds ago.

i thought a similar but i'm not going to talk about that. >> that is not news. >> the current administration. unemployment has come down. poverty has come down. with peter previously of economic growth in the importance of more robust growth to solving all the challenges come energy, entitlement reform, deficit reduction, health care in terms of trying to break the gridlock. your estimates are that more palatable. what has gone wrong over the last eight years? stipulating you inherited a tough situation. it has gone wrong that we are stuck at 2% or. >> first of all, it's a great question and i will answer it. i may disagree with one sort of subtle part of that question that's very important to distinguish. in the age of income and wealth in wage inequality, with great

imbalances and power in bargaining power, it is not a correct assumption to assume that if the economy grows quickly that the middle-class and the the poor will be better off. one of the characteristics of noninclusive growth is that too much of the gdp growth does an end run whether that's an economic growth for too many people in the middle-class is a spectator sport. you don't experience it yet as you correctly pointed out, that is beginning to change in ways that are really important and economically in terms of economic policy, extremely germane to the debate we are having. the games that you reference, the fact that median household income grew 5% last year, 50% on middle class. by the way, this wasn't reported as much. the income of the 10th percentile or 8%.

i work a lot on this issue of full employment, how it is a verb market were done for the benefit proportionally is precisely what i would rebate. when the economy begins to tighten up, this is not a rosy scenario. everybody is fine. everybody is far from fine. a year or two of positive growth does not make up for decades of stagnation. don't get me wrong. but it is the very much predict both outcome of a tightening job market which delivers more outcome. i'm growth you have to really look at a couple things. economic growth is largely a function of what it is at a growth in the growth of the labor force. the growth of the labor force is following because of old people like me you are aging, retiring. one issue is a function of demographics baked in the cake. the fact productivity growth has

slowed and that goes back free obama, the factor productivity growth has slowed is by far our most important economic problem. i have a set of ideas that i think would help, many of which are quite closely linked to hillary clinton's investment agenda. i will tell you what would hurt. it would deport 7 million working people. we already have a problem with the slow growth of the labor force. people talking about marxian b. and you can impugn mark anyway you want. all he did was run transplant or a standard macroeconomic model and what he ended up with is a recession. the main reason he ended up with a recession is because he assumed trump is able to deport a significant chunk of the labor force which continues to say we want to do. that's terrible economic policy.

>> 75% of the country thinks her on the wrong track. mentally from talking to people in the kidnap polling is some large amount of that is because 2% growth unevenly distributed even now people are not optimistic. the election to some extent on the democratic policies of the last eight years, is that there do ask. isn't it fair to ask another democratic resident pursuing some different policies that a lot of continuity how we can expect hillary clinton to have growth rates more like 3% in 2%. >> it is a good question -- think that the constraints of the macroeconomy are such that when presidential candidates start saying i will get you three or 3.5, you should leave the room because there's nothing there. i haven't heard bill clinton say anything like that. what i have heard her say if the policies will ensure that more of the growth continues to go to

middle and low-income people through things like increasing minimum wage, through debt-free college, through investments in being able to balance work. and most recently, making sure that the child tax credit reaches down to the very lowest poor people who are excluded from it now. this is your idea to expand the tax credit and how to start taking up 1 dollar of earnings for 3000.45% rate right now at 15% rate. hillary clinton will get the economy from 2% to 3%. the answer is no president has the ability to do that in a way that would convince any reasonable economist. it just doesn't work that way. we don't understand well enough the factors in productivity growth. we do understand the demographic

pressures. if you ask and hillary clinton policies increased the growth rate, the answer is yes. it's a matter of basis points. basis points or hundred of a percent. the main way that would occur is through investments in public is room for structure investment. >> more government spending. as far as i know she's not proposing any cuts in spending that i know a beard is that correct? >> i don't -- there's none that i can think of. >> the reduction of spending. some increases on a variety of programs. they have some institutions. >> the key is that her tax an institution is a group of people. they take about 250,000. >> i think it's so important to solve a lot of the problems.

while those policies that increase, there is no specific goal in mind that would increase very much. >> yeah, i don't hear hillary clinton saying i can get to three. >> you the tighter policies. he said radical policies people should be optimistic about the growth would go well. >> that's not what i said. it's short of a generic question. there's no set of policy establishes beelzebub realistic as we can. i know that there is a lot of silly talk. peter is a friend and i agree with a lot of what he says on the trade deficit by the way. there's a lot of really ridiculous talk about the three, 3.5 during the primaries. somebody said for in somebody else at six. that is complete and that are not meant economically illiterate. what is true as hillary clinton's plan in my view can

boost the productivity growth rate, which again is a good chunk of the equation. she can boost the productivity growth rate for investment in infrastructure and r&d which are critical and by the way there's bipartisan support. this is sent and that might interest some of the folks in the room. if you want something that could realistically happen, the answer is clinton's infrastructure plan. let me say one other thing. not only can hillary clinton's plan boost the productivity side for investment in infrastructure, two areas i believe there's a strong untapped elasticity right now. but her work family balance, paid family medical leave can boost the labor supply side of the equation. trump would kill the labor side supply of the equation. if you listen to sandy, his plan is recession. so i do believe hillary clinton policies to let the growth rate.

i'm not going to tell you it's going to get to 3.5% or 3% or whatever%. it will improve. >> a stock with more specificity but everybody talks about the guest speaker ryan penny president clinton. this will be tax reform in infrastructure. maybe a repatriation one time. we must be in d.c. because her talking about repatriation at 9:30. >> you're in the room. with chuck schumer and paul ryan and they say put on the table for us a grand bargain that involves taxes whether individual or not in infrastructure. but with that look like? >> great question. i would say would be in infrastructure program. hillary clinton talks of a 275 billion program in roads and bridges and mass transit, in broad air and, in schools which

i just love this idea that our public school in a serious investment often in energy-saving areas. in 25 billion to capitalize infrastructure could be leveraged numerous times. so how do you pray for it -- pay for it? >> some broad argument tax reform is likely to go anywhere because of the resistance to tax increases that have been so pervasive and frankly this tax reform thing becomes kind of a unicorn for me. my big distraction because everybody means something different by. the corporate site which you alluded to is a hot knife is something everybody agrees upon and we really could perhaps find some compromise. a good place to start is with

some kind of a repatriation that was attached to a reform of international corporate taxation. i've got aside a colleague of mine. try chewing long and this woman is like the expert in all the different flavors of repatriation. you've got to read the latest paper on that if you're into this because it really goes through the details. the world's foremost scholar of different types of repatriation. if you do a tax holiday, that's a lousy idea and chuck schumer agrees that's a lousy idea. that is the idea you allow companies to repatriate earnings in some favorable rate and is purely voluntary and that's it. usually they wanted to be five. according to the scorekeepers, that's a big money loser because all it does is transduced

corporations to do more and more deferral. so that leaves you with the compulsory repatriation. the best idea is a repatriation tied to some sort of international tax reform. i like president obama's idea which is the repatriate at a 14% rate. at the same time you plug in a 19% minimum rate. that's the best is not good fund a 110 deep dives. perfect to be enhancing infrastructure. >> some areas where you think you and iran agree on what needs to be done. >> one area we robustly agree on and i think it's great is expanding the earned income tax credit to reach childless adults. something paul ryan has talked about. i remember the campaign marco rubio talked about an expansion of the child tax credit that looks like what we've been talking about.

paul ryan has talked about poverty and many of his ideas are orthogonal to my own good da da you sort of wanted job. that's implicit and i know that's wrong. one day we really agree upon is that these pro-refundable tax credits. expanding is an area we're in. i'll bet you paul ryan. others may know i would think that this infrastructure i.t. would have some appeal that we know he wants to reform the corporate side of the code. i have pretty good friends -- i have good republican friends, some of whom say why are we doing infrastructure? these are business people. so this is the bipartisan thing. >> 50 mark questions, but i'm a

student at the clock. jarrett, thank you very much. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> our last panel, our last discussion with fresh water is coming. going to be joined now by two folks who talk more about economics. restaurant public policy and former deputy director of the white house national economic council "-end-double-quotes eakin who is president of the american action for them and former chief economist for the president's council of economic risers if you could both come up, please. >> thank you for coming. >> have a seat. let's start with you and just tommy what you thought about the conversation so far, areas where you agree, optimistic, pessimistic. >> i think i will pass on that one. not my area of expertise.

they only heard part of the discussion so far, but i think i agreed with a lot of what jerry just said that i heard in terms of blood are some of the long-term drivers and policies that hold the most promise including expanding childless workers come in many whom are young adult in the labor force. >> a secretary clayton one, how would you answer it? should i be thinking about economic puzzles that could win paul ryan support or should i be thinking of gainesville rejected traded to the american people and wear him down assuming he still speaker. >> i mean, i think there's going to be a compromise. if i were her, i think about what our good policies. paul brand appears to be someone who cares about good policy, too. they have different views on what strengthens economy the most by trying to find common ground and things that are a combination of what you believe

will have the strongest impact on inclusive growth with what hewitt is probably what i would advise. >> or your supporter donald trump candidacy? >> i'm not. >> is your preferred outcome? >> john mccain. [laughter] i am still there. to me this is from a truly policy point of view, to my eye, the democrat had given up on growth. there's really nothing in that it is going to genuinely affect long-term productivity growth and the things they need to know need to move from a 2% economy to the american economy that we deserve and can achieve. i find that very troubling. it's all a set of new entitlement programs with promises to pay for from taxing the rich and that's about it. >> the argument is some of the

programs with this project to the d. and giving that -- >> novel not affect productivity. they make it a one-time bump in labor force participation at us. that's not going to affect long-term productivity growth. his policies are a hot mass and don't really add up in any coherent fashion. when you look at the u.s. economy right now, the most compelling feature is unlike the postwar period of 2007 in the standard of living doubled every 35 years in the american dream is visible to people, it is now on track to double every 75 years in the american dream is disappeared over the horizon and there's nothing that addresses that in any deep way. >> let's talk about the affordable care at. if you're comfortable voting front of everybody, you can

close your eyes. raise your hand if you think it is on track to control health care costs. raise your hand. one in the back. i asked that question in almost every group i speak to him to both is actually about. the notion that controls costs. what has gone wrong but at least the perception of business people, academics, even people within the upon it and its duration is one of the two primary goals that it has. >> if you look back to 2010 before it was an act did, in we actually have lower health care -- i wasn't sure -- i think it is naral progress. if you go back to 2010 we actually have lower health care spending every day projected from that time plus we have 20 million more people covered by health insurance. >> more of a political question,

but why is it no one to think that except for you in a handful of people in the administration? .. responsiveness to it. so i think what is important or what are the real effects and so far it seems to me that we have had a very positive trend in terms of controlling healthcare costs. yes, it would be better to control them even more but the effect of aca has apparently been very positive.

>> as i understood it as being enacted, one way costs were going to be controlled by the payment advisory board. members have not been named for that. it does not exist. isn't that -- the fact that that's not there a problem of cost control? >> i don't think we have gotten to the point that that's supposed to go into effect yet but the cost control have come through payment reform in the medicare system, for example. that's not exclusively the way to achieve costs control through the act. >> how would you score the affordable care act because now on track to do more for businesses and individuals and for government? >> it never was going to. there were two objectives. it was very expansion heavy, lots of check in medicaid, the changes to cover people and very light on genuine attempts to

change the delivery system. these all. >> sort of the features that were supposed to be important and they've all been modest at best and largely failures. so that's not surprising to me because there really wasn't a genuine effort to control costs in the aca. >> i have to ask what you think of that answer. >> do you think healthcare costs have been better since 2010? >> it started to slowdown prior to 2010 and so it's certainly not an aca-related phenomena. >> in part because of the recession? >> in part recession and other things. people cared about how much spending was going on. i think the sort of basic attitude in that area where people are worried about being at financial risks for big patient costs is real. i think we have seen some important transformation because they're not really driven by the aca in a way that, i think, we

could have cemented those things. you look at premiums it's been sponsor market. gee, they are only going 3-4%. the places it touched are right now disaster areas. the exchange are a mess. medicaid programs are uneven and never a great program. so i don't think it deserves any real credit in the pace of spending. >> so let's say secretary clinton is president and paul ryan speaker and schumer is majority and you two are negotiators of making changes in the affordable care act which would likely happen in the administration. where would be areas where you would look to on the cost side where you would look to say, here are way that is speaker ryan and a president clinton could agree, let's maybe make changes in the program. is there any common ground you two would say let's start doing

the numbers on x and y, what would those be, anything? >> i'm not a healthcare expert. i'm a tax expert. i could not go into the details of that. i do think she's had compelling proposals to deal with the higher out of pocket costs. medicaid is also a issue, because of supreme court case there are some hold in coverage that we are not by the act but that needs to be address so those are areas that i would look at. >> the reason i give the answer and the basic idea whether it's child care costs or out of pocket costs or healthcare costs, the strategy is get people to buy more of this stuff, that increases. >> she's going to have some say in it. >> i agree. she is going to want to keep exchanges from melting down further and they're in bad shape. you can do that, change the age bands to 3 to 1 and 5 to 1.

minimize grace periods. some things you can do with margins to help prop them up and in exchange what the republicans would want is a real focus on medicare as the delivery system reform mechanism. it pays a lot of bills in this country. people practice for medicare some as other patients. if you drive a delivery system reform through medicare, you have a real chance. medicare advantage are problem republicans want to focus on. use that as a vehicle to try out different coordinated care delivery systems across the country. medicare grassroots up and grassroots-up approach. they want reforms, she gets the expansions preserved. >> right. republicans as you know have been completely willing to raise any taxes over the last several years. a president clinton making a proposal on -- under domestic agenda involves as jared said

what she says are fully paid for by raising certain taxes. if the house of representatives is still speaker ryan, won't raise any taxes. what happened to her domestic agenda? >> well, so i think there are a couple of possibilities here that i would be optimistic about, one is infrastructure coupled with business tax reform and there have been long-standing proposals to combine the two of those things. and including proposals by former chairman that would couple revenue raise from business tax reform principally to pay for infrastructure. there are instances where republicans are voted for targeted tax increases in the context of finance and infrastructure, one would argue about whether the expiration of the high-income bush tax should be considered for or not raising taxes. right now the republican party appears to be somewhat in --

given the presidential campaign. [laughter] >> they can throw the house and senate, governor of massachusetts, governor of wisconsin. [laughter] >> there are lots of republicans in very stable positions but at will have oh controversy that this presidency has generated. there's question after the campaign if secretary clinton wins what kind of republican parties the republican party wants to be and, you know, one question is would the republican party begin to think about immigration reform again. would they begin to think about how to attract female voters and paid leave and child care. perhaps they won't, perhaps they will. i think these are really open questions that if secretary clinton wins will require some soul search. >> do you accept the democratic that immigration reform, that

that's good for the economy, do you accept that? >> absolutely. that's -- the fundamental fact is the native-born population in the u.s. does not have replacement fertility n. the absence of immigration, we are japan, we shrink as a nation and we get very old. the flip side of that, everything about our future is dictated by our immigration decisions. so immigration reform is a real opportunity to -- to set the economy on a path of the future and i think republicans are very short-sided not to take that opportunity. >> i want to go back to gdp growth. jared seem today say that might raise growth but 3% is not realistic. a lot of republicans believe and some republican that is you have to get 3% growth. is that something hillary clinton should be thinking about or talking about or not a big area of emphasis in your her mind? >> i think hillary clinton is focused on accelerating growth and the economy and the estimates are that trump's

proposals would revolt in a recession, result in significant lower growth because of immigration -- >> you think the proposal would never happen so scoring it that way is misleading? >> under trump? >> yeah. >> yeah, i would hope that it does not happen but we are sort of confronted with what each candidate is proposing. >> i know she's for higher growth, but is it whether i'm going to get 3% growth or not, is that -- would that be the result of policies, is that an important result to get to or not? >> absolutely. we shouldn't strive just for growth per se and a lot of the investments that she's talk about whether it's in child care, whether it's the expansion of the child tax credit, whether it's in education, are things that there is extensive evidence lead to long-term improvements,

if you look at something at the tax-credit expansions. similar expansions resulted in improvement, health outcomes, education outcomes, earning outcomes. drive growth long-term. >> so you worked for senator mccain and defense spending is obviously a huge part of the budget. where would you say the debate is within the republican party on whether the rhetoric of, you know, president obama's military should be met with increase defense spending or not? >> i think there's a lot of agreement that it -- there should been increased spending. the only disagreement is willingness to increase the nondefense discretionary spending as part of that deal. the budgetary fact is that these large entitlement spending programs, medicare, medicaid, affordable care act and social security has been steadily crushing and pushing out of the

budget the nondefense discretionary, that's national security, infrastructure, education, all of the things founders saw roles of government been pushed out. that's got to be undone. i think people recognize that. the trouble is to undo it you have to deal with the existing entitlement programs and if you look at the two presidentals, they are both saying, no, i'm not going to touch social security and medicare and hillary clinton is saying expand these things. >> i don't here other leaders talking about cutting entitlement programs either. >> no, i don't think we have seen a serious discussion about this in a couple of years but the reality is that barack obama will leave budget that if left in autopilot and that 60% is interest of previous borrowing. no one has done -- promised to

fix it, both trump and clinton have promised not to make it worse, that's it. >> if secretary clinton pulls you aside during a transition, president elect, so we have all the domestic policies out there, tax policy, spending policy, where would these lead me after my first term on the deficit? what would you tell her? what's your analysis of where would that leave the country? >> basically if you include her money that she is proposed to set aside for business tax reform, finance infrastructure, she does not increase the deficit whereas trump would increase it by about $5.3 trillion. >> and it's not increasing the deficit a good enough goal or should she add just things to try to have reduction? >> we are going to have deficit reaction but thus far the efforts which have been significant have been heavily weighted towards spending. a lot is aging of the

demographics. >> i have looked at policies and looked at deficit reduction, you know, i think it's important that i get some deficit reduction in my first term. i want to change my policies. what would you do to get reductions? >> we need to look at revenue side. >> she said i want more deficit, raise taxes more than you're currently proposing it? >> i would consider it, yes. >> which ones she is not raising that you would want to raise under is that scenario? >> i think you could potentially go higher at the very top end. >> individual? >> yes. >> how high would be fencible to go? >> i can't give you exact number but i can tell you there's a recent study in the journal and literature that finds that no -- they found no reasonable evidence or convincing evidence

that raising the rates on high-income people will actually result in real economic behavioral effects. so there are changes, for example, in the timing of realization of income, but it's not clear that you actually generate a lot of distortion by raising taxes on more wealthy. >> could you actually raise meaningful money for deficit reduction? >> absolutely. >> and how high would you have to raise it? >> we would have to sit down with a spreadsheet. >> you don't see a downside as you suggested? >> no, i think there's always a trade-off but at this point what we have done so far in deficit reduction has been heavily weighted on the spending side and we need to do more on revenue. >> most presidential candidates ran on boiler-plate antiobama notions repealing the affordable care act, they all had tax cuts, jeb bush a lot like donald trump's, marco rubio had some original ideas although they

were criticized as being too activist. did you see in the context of the presidential nomination, boy, that should be in front and center of republican tax policy now? >> so i thought something jared mentioned about the income tax of first single earners. that's important for people to focus on, you know, the house agenda targeted a new strategy toward poverty. i think that has to be at the center of the republican party going forward. the basic reality is that for three elections in a row now the economic message has fallen, mccain, romney and now trump. it's fallen on deaf ears. people are not interested in it. they have to wake up and think of this. it's focusing on the antipoverty, a genuinely important issue and something to worry about it. i like rubio because the tax plan meant something, it wasn't a collection of things.

i want growth and families. it had a set of values embedded in it. i think that's really important. i'm a big fan of the house task force tax reform for the same reason. it's an emphasis on growth in the time we need better growth and i think they are going to have to think hard of the social safe net. the reality is this, the next president is going to have a recession. i don't know what year, we don't know how bad, the odds are they will. they have to city about buying insurance against that recession. >> do you think that's inevitable? >> to date the structure of the economy a two-part economy, the household sector, 3% roughly in the business sector and everything else really not that good with the exception of those recent durable goods orders that's been the character for a while. that can't persist forever. either the business sector has to look at household sectors saying things are okay, let's higher more rapidly, spend more

money on investment or the house is going to take a look at business sector and say, oh, that's really the future and they're going to cut back. i just don't see this kind of uneven economy growing for much -- stable period. >> president obama did inherit a very weak economy from president bush. you could turn the clock back of the obama administration, are there different choices he could have made to see more robust growth over the eight years? >> i mean, it's tough with the congress that we've had. so there are certainly policies that would have increased growth even further, whether it's getting proposal for the childless worker enacted or stimulus initially in response to the recession, there's a whole bunch of education investments, child care investments that would stimulate the economy and promote growth in the long-term. actually going back to your prior question that even if you just adopted secretary clinton's

proposals that are deficit neutral, they are expected and at least in my opinion stimulate growth. so you would end up reducing the debt in the long-term as a result of that. but the question is, you know, is there something more that president obama could have done with its congress and i'm not sure. i think he pushed really hard for some important priorities and got some of them enacted and some blocked by congress. >> in the clinton proposal, it's instructed to look at evaluation. if you take out immigration reform. there's no growth there. all the jobs come from immigration reform. that's it. the median family income declines. so it's not inclusive growth because of good market performance and underlying economic performance. it's a big tax in transfer program. >> how do you know that? >> read the report, look at the tables. >> i assume you disagree with

the conclusion? >> that's exactly what the report says, we are going to create 6,000 jobs over the next eight years, what does immigration do 600,000 jobs. that's fine. that's the policy and if you look at median family income in the tables it declines. >> i mean, i think one of the issues in general with macro economic estimates are they cannot include all of the different factors that are going to drive growth. a lot of them, for example, don't include all the positive effects of getting more people to go to college of having higher quality child. >> how fast that going to happen? >> increasing labor force participation. >> this is the next president. i'm all for education reform but 18 years -- >> if we are worried about long-term deficits we should be worried about long-term growth. >> i'm worried about short-term deficits. in the next year we get trillion. no longer long-term. >> i do think everybody agrees

whether tax reform happens or not, that's going to be a big part, both candidates are talking about major infrastructure spending. donald trump proposing more than her. what are the sort of best practices we have learned from the stimulus bill and other major infrastructure spendings about how to spend it most efficiently so that you are building things that are useful for society and aren't waste? >> i'm focused more on the aspect of how you're going to pay for this and i think that we have a business tax code that is broken and need to think about reforming both the international side and the domestic side but right now we have sort of the worst of both worlds on the international side where we are distorting investment, we are encouraging money to stay offshore when if we had a worldwide system as some have proposed, we would at least eliminate the lockout effect. >> you're the infrastructure

spending zara under the schumer spending deal or mcconnell spending deal. >> don't promise too quick. one of the great mistakes is promising things too quickly, shovel-ready. don't overpromise how big a measure gdp you'll get. there's a lot of infrastructure that's very valuable like fix the roads. i can commute more easily, so i leave later, get to the office, i get home sooner, my life is better, but what i do at the office is unchanged. it still could be a good thing. don't overpromise on this thing and require a genuine economic impact analysis before you give any locality the money. there's a lot of evidence like in the kansas city region they require this, they've got fen --

phenomenally way to do it. i will say no more. >> okay, thanks to you both and thanks also to king goldstein. thank you all for coming and the peter g. perterson foundation. thank you all and have a good day. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> if you missed this discussion on the policies and politics of campaign 2016, you can find it in our video library at c-span.org. this morning donald trump, nbc news is reporting that the donald trump campaign is pulling out of virginia, a move that stunned staff in battleground states. by the way, we will have donald trump live for you today at west palm beach in florida coming up live today at noon eastern. news on hillary clinton campaign, washington post has endorsed the hillary clinton campaign writing an online editorial this morning that mrs. clinton underlined fitness for office, major decision of her potential presidency, choice

of senator tim kaine, running mate, what americans might reasonable expect of a clinton presidency, seriousness of purpose and relentless commitment even in the face of great obstacles to achievements in the public interest. you can find that at washington post.com. >> watch c-span's live coverage between third debate on wednesday night. our live debate preview from the university of nevada, las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the debate studio audience is 8:30 p.m. and debate at 9:00 p.m. eastern. stay with us including reaction and facebook postings. watch live at c-span.org. listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone with free c-span radio app. download it from app store or google play.

our campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span with live debate for u.s. house and senate races. today just afternoon the pennsylvania eighth district and at 7:00 richard and debra ross debate for the north carolina u.s. senate. on friday night at 8:00 eastern wisconsin u.s. senate debate between republican senator ron johnson and former democrat rus s feingold. watch our complete coverage online and c-span.org and listen on c-span radio app. every weekend book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. book tv is live from the 28th

annual southern festival of books in nashville. festival features over 200 authors from around the country and book signings. on saturday coverage begins 11:00 a.m. eastern featured authors include national book award finalists russell, strangers in their own land, anger and morning and spanish civil war, 1936 to 1939. true brothers, a kidnapping and a mother's quest. a strew story of the jim crowe south and patrick phillips blood at a root, racial cleansing of america. on sunday day two of the southern festival of book live beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern featured authors include joseph, my father and atticus finch.

andrew, strong inside. perry wallace, commission of race and sports in the south. marjorie, we are charleston. tragedy and triumph at mother emmanuel. then at 9:00 p.m. after words, temple university professor sarah talks about the costs of higher education in her book paying the price. college costs, financial aid and detrail of the american dream. she's interviewed by lisa, former president of city university of new york. >> are less than half and sometimes even maybe only 30% of the total cost of attending college. the real hang-ups that students have are the need to pay their rent, to pay utilities, to buy food and they can't do those things in the same way when they're in college because they need to spend time in the classroom. so it's those kinds of things

that we saw trip them up over time. it really wasn't the tuition and fees. >> go to see complete schedule. >> a discussion this morning with intelligence and defense policy experts on biological threat preparedness and food safety highlighting the importance of agriculture and bio security and strategies and tactics the next administration might use. part of the discussion features former senate majority leader, hosted here this morning by the bipartisan policy center and should get underway shortly. ..